Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set AsideGovindlal Chhaggan Lal Patel v. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and Others
Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1972; reported as AIR 1976 SC 263, [1976] 1 SCR 451 and (1975) 2 SCC 482
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 27 August 1975
- Bench
- Justices Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati and R.S. Sarkaria
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964 — Sections 5, 6(1), 6(5), 8, 36; Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 — Rule 3; Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 — Sections 3(1), 4(1), 4(4)
Final Outcome
The High Court's judgment was set aside, the Judicial Magistrate's order was restored and the fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded to the appellant (para 22).
Key holdings
- The newspaper-publication requirement in Section 6(1) applies to every notification under Section 6, including one under Section 6(5) adding new produce (paras 9, 18).
- The use of ‘shall’ or ‘may’ is not conclusive; the subject matter, the importance of the provision and its relation to the object of the Act decide whether it is mandatory (para 13).
- Publicity requirements that protect the right to trade and precede penal liability must be followed punctiliously (para 16).
- A notification not published as the statute requires lacks legal validity, and no prosecution can be founded on its breach (para 18).
Brief Facts
A market committee inspector complained that the appellant bought ginger in January and February 1969 without the licence required by Section 8 of the Act (paras 1-2). Ginger had been added to the market's list of produce by a notification of 16 February 1968 under Section 6(5) (paras 18, 21). The Judicial Magistrate, Godhra, acquitted him after a summary trial because publication of the notification was not proved (paras 2, 20). The Gujarat High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted him under Section 36 read with Section 8 and fined him Rs. 10, following a ruling under the earlier Bombay Act (paras 1, 21).
Court's Findings
Section 6(1) requires a notification under "this section" to be published in Gujarati in a newspaper; the words mean what they say and cover every notification under any sub-section of Section 6 (para 9). Whether a provision is mandatory depends on legislative intent, and the use of ‘shall’ or ‘may’ is not conclusive; the word ‘also’ shows the additional mode of publication has a purpose (para 13). Adding produce under Section 6(5) requires the whole Section 5 procedure afresh, including objections (para 15). Newspaper publication "attracts greater public attention than publication in the Official Gazette"; without it traders' rights would be hampered without a chance to object, and breaches carry penal consequences, so the words must be "followed punctiliously" (para 16). The Gujarat Act consciously replaced the Bombay Act's ‘may’ with ‘shall’ (para 17). The notification was not published in any newspaper, so the inclusion of ginger "lacks legal validity and no prosecution can be founded upon its breach" (para 18). The High Court proceeded on a wrong assumption and on a ruling under the Bombay Act that did not apply (para 21).
Legal Principle
Whether ‘shall’ is mandatory depends on legislative intent, but language of command is of great relevance. Where a statute prescribes newspaper publication of a notification that restricts trade and carries penal consequences, the requirement is mandatory, and no prosecution can rest on a notification not so published (paras 13, 16, 18).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan
‘Shall’ is ordinarily mandatory unless that leads to absurd or inconvenient consequences or conflicts with the intent of the legislature; the construction depends on the Act, the setting, the object and the consequences of infringement.
- Haridwar Singh v. Begum Sumbrui
No universal rule decides whether a provision is mandatory or directory; one must look to the subject matter, the importance of the provision disregarded and its relation to the general object of the statute.
- Presidential Election Case
A seven-Judge Bench held that the subject matter, the importance of the provision and its relation to the object of the Act decide whether a provision is mandatory or directory.
View all precedents (4)
- Thakur Pratap Singh v. Sri Krishna
Some rules are vital and go to the root of the matter: they cannot be broken.
