STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus HANS RAJ DEPAR ETC.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 25-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
78 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
HANS RAJ DEPAR ETC. 
February 25, 1977 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and 1Vlarking of Prices) Order, 
1966, Clauses 3(a) and (4)-Meaninf intendment of. 
Cl~use 3(a) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and Marking 
of Pnces) Order, 1966 issued by the Maharashtra Government in exercise of 
the powers conferred by s. 3 read vvith s. 5 of the &scntial Commodities ,.\ct 
(Act 10 of. 1955) provides that "every dealer shall in respect of the articles 
specified in Schedule I display a list of prices in the form prescribed 
in 
the 
Schedule", Schedule f lists under items 15 and 16 "Vanaspati tinned'' .and 
"Vanaspati loose" respectively. 
Clause ( 4) of the Order provides 
that 
no 
dealer shail (a) sell or agree or offer for sale any article at a price higher than 
the price displayed or (b) refuse to sell or withhold from sale of such articles 
to any person at the Price displayed or marked. Section 7 of the Essential Com· 
modities Act provides for punishment for contravention of the order made under 
s. 3. 
The four respondents, shopkeepers in Bombay-some run grocery shops, while 
some deal only in oils of different varieties-were charged for the offence of 
failure to display prices of vanaspati which they were selling in their shops in 
tinned and loose form. The defence of the respondents to the charge is that they 
were selling hydrogenated oils or vegetable ghee or vegetable 
oils 
and 
not 
"vanaspati". 
The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents and held that 
the charge was unsustainable because ( 1) Even if the word 'vanaspati' may 
have acquired a local meaning, it could not be said that the order used the word 
'vanaspati' to include hydrogenated oils. 
(2) Since hydrogenated o'.ls were not 
included in Schedule J, the respondents could not be expected to know that they 
were bound to disclose the prices of hydrogenated oil. 
Dismi<>sing the States' 
appeal, the High Court held. on a different reasoning that the prosecution was 
not maintainable since non·compL·iance of clause (3) of the Order 1966, cannot 
he an offence punishable as contravention unless there is a contravention of clause 
4, inasmuch as the intention of the Legislature which always made a distinct.ion 
between contravention of law and failure to comply or non-compliance with ;t, 
\Vas to punish contravention of clause 4 and not of clause 3 sin1p!iciter. 
Dismissing the State's appeal, the Court, 
HELD : ( 1) Clauses 3 rul,d 4 of the Maharashtra Scheduled 
(Display ar.d 
Marking of Prices) Order, 1966 deal with different malters 
because where-as 
clause 3 imposes an obligation on a dealer to display the prices of articles 
specified in Schedule I clause 4 prohibits him from selling an article at a price 
higher than the one displayed or from refusing to sell it at the price displayed. 
A contravention of clause 3 (a) is full and complete by mere reason of the fact 
that the dealer has failed to display the prices of articles specified in Schedule J. 
That contravention does not depend on the consideration wl1ere he has charged 
a higher price than the price marked or whether he has refused to sell an article 
at the price displayed. 
In other words, the first step which a dealer has to take 
is to d:splay the prices of articles specified in Schedule I; if he fails to do that. 
he is gu;lty of contravention of clause 3(a) which is punishable under s. 7( l) 
of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The additional obligation which the 
dealer has to discharge is to be ready and willing to sell articles at the prices 
displayed. 
Failure to do so is a different and distinct contravention which also 
attracts the application of s. 7(1). The view that clauses 3 and 4 of the Order 
1966 are so interlinked that the Legislature did not intend to punish 'the contra-
\ 
1
• 
, 
MAHARASHTRA v. HANS RAJ DEPAR (Chandrachud, J.) 
79 
vention of the fonner unless such contravention was accompanied by a contra-
vention of the latter provision is not correct. The wedding of the two clauses 
in this f<lsion is entirely UTI\.\'arranted. 
[81 E-H 82-A] 
(2) The orders of acquittal, in the instant case, must be confirmed on the 
ground of total lack of evidence showing that the re5pondents are dealers in 
vanaspati and that they had kept vanaspati for sale in their shops. 
In view 
of the challenge that what was being sold
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.