LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus SHIV SHANKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. A ·~ B c D E F G H MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELfil v. smVSHANKAR February 1, 1971 [S. M. SIKRI, C.J., V. BHARGAVA AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 607 Repeal-Implied-Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954--Fruir Products Order, 1955-Sale of adul¢rated Vinegar-Prosecution under Adulteration Act-Competence-If Fruit Products Order impliedly repeals Adulteration Act. The respondent, who was selling Vinegar under a license granted under the Fruit Products Order, 1955, made by the Central Government under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, was prosecuted under the Preven- tion of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated vinegar. He- pleaded that vinegar, whether brewed or synthetic, being a food product and standard specification for such vinegar .being tabulated in Part XIV attached to' the Second Schedule of the Fruit Or.der, prosecution without the previous sanction of the licensing Officer as required by clause 15 of the said order was incompetent. The trial judge rejected the contention. But the High Coun quashed the proceedings. It was observed that the special provisions of the Fruit Order had overriding effect and therefore a manufacturer of fruit products could only be prosecuted under the pro- visions of the Fruit Order. In the appeal to this Court it was contended for the respondent -Olat there was an ilTeconcilable conflict between the two statutory provisions, and the Fruit Order being, not only of a Jate later than the Adulterati~ Act but also having, by virtue of s. 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act overriding effect over all other laws, it must prevail over the Adulteration Act and the rules. On the question whether the Fruit Order impliedly repeals the Adulteration Act, HELD : The plea of implied repeal must fail and. the appeals must be· allowed. To determine if a later statutory provision repeals by implication an· earlier one it is necessary to scrutinise and consider the true meaning and effect both of the earlier and the later statute. If the objects of the two· statutory provisions are different and the language of each statute is res- tricted to its own object or subject, then they are generally intended to- run in parallel lines without meeting and there would be no real oonftict. though appare)ltly it may appear to be so on surface. [611 D-G] The provisions of the Adulteration Act and the Fruit Order, for effec-. tuating their respective objects, have imposed, different restrictions in the manufacture and sale of vinegar whether b'rewed or synthetic. In the in- terest of public health the respondent has to comply with the provisions of the Adulteration Act and Rules and in the interests of equitable distribu- tion of essential commodities including the articles of food covered by the Essential Commodities Act and the Fruit Order they have to compry with the provisions of the Fruit Order. Both the provisions are supp lo- 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 3 S.C R mentary and cumulative in their operation and no proviSion of the Fruit Order 1s shown to be destructive of or fatal to any provision of the Adul- teration Act or the Rules made thereunder so as to compel the court to hold that they cannot stand together. If the Adulteration Act or Rules .impose some restrictions on the manufacturer, dealer and seller of vinegar~ then they have to comply with them ir'respective of the fact that the Fruit Order imposes lesser number of restrictions in respect of these matters. The former do not render compliance with the laticr impossible, nor does ·Compliance with the fdrmer necessarily and automatically involve violation -Of the latter, Even if both statutes .to some extent overlap, section 26 of the General Clauses Act fully protects the guilty parties against doubk aeoparcly or double penalty. (618 C-l!] Om Prakash Gupta v .. State of U.P., [1957] S.C,R. 423, T, S. Baliah v. T. S. Rengachari, 1969 3 S.C.R. 65, State v. Gurcharan Singh, A.I.R. 1952 Punjab 89, and Paine v, Stater, [1883] 11 Q,B.D. 120, .referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 151 to 158 of 1966. Appeals from the judgment and order dated December 30. 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Crimi- A B c nal Revisions Nos. 81-D to 83-D, 107-D and 129-D to 132-D oi D 1964. Bishan Narain, B. P. Maheshwari and N. K. Jain, for the :appellant (in all the appeals) . C. K. Daphtary, N. N. Goswami, K. L. Mehta and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.