M. Hidayathullah, C. J. - (1.) THE appellant appeals against his conviction under S.13 of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act 1958 and the sentence of Rs. 500-/ as fine (in default simple imprisonment for three weeks) imposed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Attingal and confirmed on appeal and revision
(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. THE appellant owned a rice-mill which he was running with the aid of power and in that mill he was milling paddy to recover rice. On evidence led against him, this fact was found established in the courts of fact. It is now argued before us that his case does not fall within the Act because he was not milling rice as an industry but only for his own private consumption. In putting forward this argument, Mr. Sardar Bahadur refers to the title of the Act and the preamble which mentions "rice-milling industry". He contends that an industry has first to be made out before the offence can be brought home and submits that the operative portions of the Act must be read as 'limited to a case of an industry. He relies upon certain rulings of this Court in which the use of the preamble has been laid down. The definition of "milling rice" is quite clear. It means, recovering rice or any product thereof from paddy with the aid of power and a "rice-mill" is defined as any plant or machinery with which, and the premises, including the the precincts thereof, in which or in any part of which, rice milling operation is carried on. The appellant admits before us that he owns this machinery and that he is milling rice with the aid of power. In other words he admits that his case is covered by the two definitions to which we have referred. He however contends that the S.5, 6 and 8 must be read only in conjunction with an industry. The definitions do not mention any industry but only defines the premises with reference to machinery run with power. Since be satisfies the definitions we cannot curtail the operative portions of the sections to an industry. It has been laid down in a number of cases that the operative portions of a statute may go beyond the preamble and if they do so, the operative portions have to be given effect to, the preamble notwithstanding. The present is an illustration of this rule which has been laid down a long time ago in Doe v. Brandling (1828) 7 B. & C. 643 and which has been applied in this court in several cases. It is obvious that this man.never took out a licence as required by law and therefore he was guilty under S.13 of running a rice mill without a proper licence. In our opinion there is no substance in this appeal which must fail. It will be dismissed. Dismissed.;