HAJI ISAB HAJI MAHOMED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1960-8-13
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 22,1960

HAJI ISAP HAJI MOHAMED Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BAPUBHAI RATANCHAND V. THE STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED]
THE STATE OF BOMBAY V. BABULAL FAKIRCHAND GANDHI [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

J.M.SHELAT - (1.)These three Revision Applications involve a common question of law arising under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act of 1939. The accused in Revision Application No. 57 of 1960 is a trader who carried on business at Broach in wheat and jowar during the years 1957-58 and 1958-59. In Rev. Application Nos. 79 and 80 of 1960 the two accused are brothers and were at the material time dealing in the market area at Balasinor in wheat rice and bajri. The question that has been raised in these three applications is whether the Bombay Agricultural produce Markets Act 1939 applies to a trader who imports agricultural produce from outside the market area and sells it within that market area. or the market constituted therein. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court Broach convicted the accused in Criminal Rev. Application No. 57 of 1960 under Rules 65(1) and 65(7) framed under the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15.00. Similarly in the other two Applications the learned First Class Magistrate Balasinor convicted the two accused therein and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 30/in default to suffer S. I. for 6 days. All the three accused thereafter filed their appeals. before the learned Sessions Judges at Broach and Nadiad respectively and their appeals were dismissed.
(2.)Mr. Patwa and Mr. V. J. Desai have raised four contentions against these orders of convictions. (1) that the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 and the Rules framed thereunder apply to agricultural produce grown within the market area notified under the Act; (2) that they apply to transactions either of purchase or of sale of such agricultural produce between an agriculturist and a trader and not to transactions between a trader and a trader; (3) that once such agricultural produce has passed from the hands of an agriculturist it loses its character of agricultural produce and becomes a commercial commodity to which the Act cannot apply; and lastly (4) that the word trader as defined in the Act means a person who buys from or sells to an agriculturist agricultural produce grown within the local area.
(3.)In order to appreciate these contentions it is necessary to refer to certain sections of the Act. The object of passing this enactment which undoubtedly is a piece of social legislation is seen from the preamble of the Act. The preamble states that the object of enacting this legislation was to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the Province of Bombay. The object thus clearly was to regulate transactions of purchase and sale of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for such agricultural produce.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.