STATE OF BIHAR versus BHAGIRATH SHARMA & ANOTHER

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 09-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
BHAGIRATH SHARMA & ANOTHER 
April 9, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND 1. D. DUA, JJ,] 
/Jilwr Es."•lllial Commodities Act othel' than Foodgrai11s Price, and 
Stuck.• (Dlspl"Y and Control) Order, 1967, Cls. ,3, 4 and .S-Tyres a11d 
1·11be!s if inclucled in Scl1ed1tle,r-Princlple1' 
of 1nrerpretat1on 
of penal 
111easurt~·. 
Constitutlo11 of l11dia, 1950, Art. 134(1)(c)-'Certi/)", scope of. 
Jtem I of Schedule I of the· Bihar Essential Commodities Act-other than 
Foodgruins-Priccs and Stocks (Display and Con!rol) Order, 1967., refer> 
to •compa,ncnt parts and accessories of automob1lcs·. 
On the 
h:1:-11~ thnt 
thcri.: was a failure on the part of the firm of the r~spondents to display 
the price list and stock position of mot~r tyres in ~heir shup, th!.! respon· 
dents were prosecuted for the offence of contrnvent1on of els. 3, 4,, and 5 
of the Order. 
The High Court in revision quashed the prosecution on 
the bilsis that th!! item did not refer to tyres and tubes of motor cars. 
After the juUgment, an ilcn1 was introduced in Schedule 11 of the Order 
relating to tyres and tubes of cars etc. 
Dismissing the appeal filed with a certific11te of fitness 
under 
Art. 
1.141 l)(c) of the Constitution, 
HELD : ( 1) Assuming fr,om a brand point of view that tyres and 
tubes of motor cars may be considered to be covered by the expression 
"component p<.1rts and accessories of auton1obiles" when construed ip 
its widest import, a comparison of the scheduled items of the Order with 
1 he items in the vurious notificatio11s issued by the State Governn1e11t and 
the Central Government shows that it wns rm intended by the draftsman 
to extend tne Order. as in force in May !969, when the firm of the m-
nondcnts wa!i inspected, to cover tyres 
and 
tubes 
of 
motor 
cars. 
'.941C-FI 
(2) According to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence 
which reflects fair play, a dealer must know with reasonable certainty 
und must have a fair warning as to what his obligation is, and what act 
of commission or omission on his part would constitute a criminal offence, 
Unlrss the dealers are in a position to know with certainty that 'tyres and 
tubes of motor cars' are included 
in the Schedule items, of which the 
price list nod the stock position ought to be displayed in a conspicuous 
part of their business premises. they cannot be held guilty in a criminal 
court of an offence under the Essential Commodities Act for the violation 
of any such mandate. 
In the present case, the Order does not unambi-
guously specify 'tyres and 
tubes 
of motor cars' as a Scheduled item. 
[941F-Hi 
(3) The word 'certify' in Art. 134(1)(c) is a strong word postulating 
the exercise of judicial discretion in determining if the question requiring 
J.ccision by this Court involves a matter of principle or a substantial ques-
tion of Jaw of great general importance. Such certificate is not to be 
g.iven as a matter of -course on the mere ground that the impugned deci-
sion is cons!dered to be erroneous. There must be exceptional or special 
ci.rcurnstances like infringement of essential principles of justice, or some 
difficult question of law of great publ:c or private imoortance. 
It is not 
to be granted so as to coovert this Court into an ordinary court of fur· 
937 
12--L797Sup.Cl/73 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 S.C,R. 
ther appeal. 
In the present case, after the issue of the Notification incluJ. · .. \ 
ing 'tyres and tubes of motor cars' in the Schedule to the Order there is 
no doubt that the Order is comprehensive enough to take within its fold 
tyres and tubes of motor cars; and the effect ·of the 
present decision 
would 
be 
confined 
only 
to 
the 
prosecution of the respondent• 
There is no material on record suggesting that the decision by this Court 
of the question posed is likely to govern any case other than the one in 
hand relating to the acquittal of the respondents. 
l940E-H] 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal Appeal 
No. 7 of 1970. 
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated 
August 14, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision 
No. 1055 of 1969. 
B .. P. Jha, for th~ appellant. 
Sarjoo Prasad and S. N. Prasad, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
DuA, J. : The State of Bihar has appealed to this Court with 
a certificate of fitness under Article 134 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution 
from the judgment a1l4, order of a learned Sin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.