# STATE OF BIHAR v. BHAGIRATH SHARMA & ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1973] 3 S.C.R. 937
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-04-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1970
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, 1. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-bihar-v-bhagirath-sharma-another-6587
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

/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 mnondcnts 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 unambiguously 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 question 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 decision 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~ appel

## Text

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 mnondcnts 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 unambiguously 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 question 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 decision 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 Single Judge of the
Patna High Court dated August 14, 1969 quashing, on revision
under ss, 439/561-A, Cr.P.C., the prosecution of Bhagirath
Sharma and Radhey Shyam Sharma, tlie respondents in this Court,
for contravention of clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bihar Essential
Commodities Act-other than Foodgrains-Prices and Stocks
(Display and Control) Order, 1967 (hereinafter called the order),
pending in the Court of the Subi-Divisional Magistrate, Gaya.
According to the prosecution case, on receipt of confidential
information that the proprietor of M/s. Auto Spare, Law Road,
Gaya, was not properly maintaining the account of Motor Tyres,
with the ulterior motive of withholding the supply of the said
article to the genuine customers, Shri Ram Nivas Singh, Marketing Officer, Gaya, had, along with two supply Insoectors, made
a surprise inspection of the firm on May 22, 1969 and f0und
certain irregularities. One oi those irregularities was, the failure
ol the firm to display the price list and stock position of Motor
Tyres anywhere in their shop, in contravention of clause 4 of
the order. On search by the said Marketing Officer, a huge stock
of Motor Tyres of different varieties numbering 487 were actually
found stored in the 1nner portion of the shop. In view of the
irregularities discovered by the Marketing Officer and the seizure
of the stock of Motor Tyres, it was felt that prima facie case had
been made out against the partners of the said firm, Shri Bhagirath Sharma and Shri Radhev Shvam Sharma, resoondents in this
Court. for contravention of clauses 3. 4 and 5 of the Order.
Complaint to that effect was accordingly made in the Court of
('
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
lliHAR STATE v. BHAGIRATH (Dua, J.)
93b
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on May 23, 1969. On the same
date, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya after persuing the
report of 1the Marketing Officer, took cognizance of the ca:;e under
s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and tramforred it for
disposal to the Court of Shri N. N. Singh, Munsif Magistrate, Ist
Class, Gaya. It is against this order of the Magistrate that the
respondents in this Court approached the Patna High Court under
ss. 439/561-A, Cr.P.C.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court after referring to
the two relevant items (Nos. 1 & 5) of Schedule 1 appended to
the Order felt bound by an earlier Single Bench decision dated
C
April 20, 1969 of that High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.
14 79 of 1968 holding that item No. 1 of Schedule I could not
be assumed to cover the commodities like Motor Tyres and Motor
Tubes though he himself thought th~t he would have taken
a
different view, had the matter been res integra.
Item No. 5 even
according to the learned Single Judge's own view could
not
cover the Motor Tyres and Motor Tubes. Being, however, bound
D
1:t< the earlier decision, he held the prosecution of the proprietors
of the firm to be misconceived. The prosecution was accordingly
quashed.
E
F
G
H
In this Court, our attention has been drawn to item No. I
in Schedule I of the Order. This item reads :-
" 1. Component parts and accessories
of
automobiles."
It is contended that this item must cover 'Tyres and Tubes of
Motor Cars and Motor Cycles'.
According to the
argument
forcibly pressed on behalf of the State of Bihar; Tyres
anti
Tubes of automobiles are their essential component parts and
the earlier Single Bench decision of the Patna High Court (in
Criminal Misc. Case No.
1479/1958)
followed as a binding
precedent in the present case should be held to have been wrongly
decided.
The other item to which reference was made by the
High Court in the
impu!Jned judgment is item No. 5 which
reads:-
"5. Cycle tyres and tu)ks, (including cycle
rickshaw
, tyres and tubes)."
The submission that this item should be held to cover Motor
Tyres and Motor Tubes was rejected by the High Court .. Before
us, however, the State has not placed any reliance on item No.5
though on behalf of the respondents it has been suggested that
where "Tyres and Tubes" are intended to be included as an item
in the schedule, they have actually been expressly so stated. The
respondent has also brought to our notice a Gazette Notification
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] 3 S.C.R.
(No. G.S.R. 82) dated September 18, 1970 published in -the Bihar
Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated September 22, 1970
according to which four items were added after item No. 9 in
. . Schedule II of the Order. The new item No. 11 reads :-
11. Tyres and tubes of cars,
buses, jeeps, vans,
· trucks, automobiles of any category whatsoever, tractors
and tractor-trollies."
Quite clearly after this Notification there can be no doubt
whatsoever that t~ Order is comprehensive enough to take within
its fold Tyres and Tubes of cars as also of 'automoblies of any
category whatsoever'. The effect of the decision of the present
case would, therefore, seem, prima facie, to be confined only to the
fate of the prosecution initiated against the respondents. It has
not been stated or even suggested at the Bar if any (and if so,
how many) pending cases of similar nature are likely to be governed by the decision of tliis Court. Unfortunately, even the High
· Court has made a laconic order on oral request, merely stating :
"IT IS CERTIFIED
That thiS case fulfils the .requirement of Article
134 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution of India and is fit
for appeal to the Supreme Court."
without showing on its face what substantial question of law or
principle of great importance was involved justifying the grant
of Certificate under Article 134 (1) (c). The word "certify" in
this Article, as often observed by this Court, is a strong· word
postulating the exercise of judicial discretion in determining if the
question requiring· decision by this Court involves a matter of
principle or a· substantial question of law of great general impor- .
tailce. Such certificate jg.not to be gjven·as a matter of course on
the mere ground that the impugned decision is considred to l:k:
erroneous. · There must be·-exceptional or special circumstances
like infringement of essential principles of justice or some difficult
question of law of great public or private importance. It is not
to be granted so as to convert this Court into an ordinary court
of further. appeal. We do not find any material on the 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. It apoears that the attention
of the High Court was not drawn to the Bihar Government Notification dated September 18, 1970, by means of which the defect
or lacuna pointed out by the High Court was removed for future
cases. Had that Notification been brought to the notice of the
High Court, one would have eXpccted it to state in the order grant-
.ing the Certificate the reasons impelling it to do so.
A
..
Il
c
..
D
•
E
F
.. -
G
H
A
ll
c
D
E
F
G
H
ll!HAR STATE v. BHAGIRATH (Dua, J.)
94!
Now in the judgement in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1479/68,
reference was made to a Notification dated January 11, 1968
(No. S.C. 218) issued by !!he Ministry of Commerce, Government
~f India in which Types and Tubes of Scooters were exoressly menUo.ned as essential commodities distinct from the component parts
and accessories of automobiles. Reference in that judgment was
also ma_9e to a Notification dated August 22, 1968 (No. S.Q.
2878) issued by the Central Government in which similarly Tyres
•tnd Tub~ of Cars, etc. were specifically mentioμed as essential
commodities, and to a still later Notification by the Central
Govenrunent dated January 3, 1969 (No. S.0. 85) in which
Tyres and Tubes of Cars were mentioned in a manner almost
similar to the one found in the Bihar Government Gazette Notilkation No. G.S.R. 82 dated September 18, 1970.
In this background even assuming that from a broad point
of view, 'Tyres and Tubes of Motor Cars' may be considered to
be covered by the general expression "Component parts and
accessories of automobiles" when construed in its widest import,
on comparison of the scheduled items of the Order with the items
in the other Notification mentioned and considered in the earlier
decision of the High Court (in Cr!. Misc. Case No. 1479/68), can
it not be reasonably and rationally assumed that it was not intended
by the draftsman to extend the Order to 'Tyres and Tubes of
Motor Cars? In our view, the drafting precedents furnished by
the other Notifications considered in the earlier decision of the
High Court (in Cd.Misc.Case No. 1470/68) do indicate that
the draftman did not intend the scheduled items in the Order
as in force in May, 1969 to cover 'Tyres and Tubes of Motor Cars'.
But independently of this aspect the question may also
be
considered from another point of view, viz., if the legal mandate
contained in the Order is expressed with such certainly and clarity
as to give reasonably precise and adequate guidance to
those
who want to be law-abiding.
In other words, does the Order
lay down an ascertainable standard of guilt by unambiguously
specifying the Tyres and Tubes of Motor Cars as a Scheduled item.
We do not think it does unless the dealers are in a position to
know with certainly that the items of Tyres and Tubes of Motor
Cars are included in the scheduled items of which the price list
and the stock position are to be displayed in a conspicuous part of their business premises, in our opinion, they
cannot br. held guilty in a criminal court of an offence under the
Essential Commodities Act for violation of any such mandate.
According to the fundamental principle o.f our criminal jurisprudence, which reflects fair play, the dealer must know with reasonable certainty and must have a fair warning as to what his
obligation is and what act of commission or omission on his part
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
would constitute a criminal offence before he can be called upon
to answer a charge and be liable to be convicted in a criminal
court for any violation of a legal mandate.
This approach is in
conformity with the general requirement that the act or default
should be associated with a legally blameworthy condition of mind.
On the view that we have taken, the High Court seems to us to
have been fully justified in recording the respondents' acquittal
and we see no cogent ground for disagreeing with it.
1he appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
A
ll