http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI AND ANR.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHANKAR INDUSTRIES AND ORS.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/02/1993

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (1)1037        1993 SCC  Supl.  (3) 361  JT 1993 (1)   601        1993 SCALE  (1)615

ACT: UP.  Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964: Section  2(a) ’Agricultural produce-Levy of  market  fee-Gur lauta,  raskat,  rab galawat, rab salawat-Held  exigible  to market fee.

HEADNOTE: Section  2(a) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam  of 1964  defined ’agricultural produce’.  The words ’gur,  rab, shakkar,  Khandasari  and jaggery’, were added in  the  said definition by U.P. Act No. 10 of 1970. A  Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court  referred  the question  whether gur-lauta and raskat and  rab-salawat  are liable  to  the  law, of market fee under  the  U.P.  Krishi Utpadan  Mandi Adhiniyam of 1964 to a Full Beach.  The  Full Bench  held  that gur-lauta and raskat  and  rabgalawat  and salawat  were  not  an  ’agricultural  produce’  within  the meaning  of  the Act, and other Benches  followed  the  Full Bench. In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf  of the  appellants  that when gur  khandsari  and  shakkar have been added in the definition of ’agricultural produce’  rab- galawat. or rab-salawat being the inferior forms of the  rab are necessary an agricultural produced within the definition of  agricultural produce.  On behalf of the  respondents  it was  contended that the Full Bench was right in  taking  the view that molasses are a different product which looses  its original  character  and  being  a  residual  article  after solidification of the natural article i.e., sugarcane juice, it  cannot  be  said to be  an  agricultural  produce,  that molasses itself being not an agricultural produce, gur lauta and  raskat prepared from molasses cannot be held to  be  an agricultural produce. Allowing the appeals, this Court, HELD:     1.  A  persual of the definition  of  agricultural produce’ under Section 2(a) of the Act shows that apart from items of produce of agriculture, horitculture,  viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, 1037 1038 animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule, the  definition further ’includes admixture of two  or  more such  items’ and thereafter it further ’includes taking  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

such  item in processed from’ and again for the  third  time the words used are land further includes gur, rab,  shakkar, khandsari and jaggery. [1041C] 2.   It is a well settled rule of interpretation that  where the legislature used the words  ’means’ and ’includes’  such definition is to be given a wider meaning    and   is    not exhaustive or restricted to the items contained or  included in such definition. [1041D] 3.   The  meaning  of ’agricultural produce’  in  the  above definition is not restricted to any products of  agriculture as  specified in the Schedule but also includes  such  items which come into being in processed form and further includes such items which are called as gur, rab, shakkar,  khandsari and jaggery. [1041E] 4.   Gur-lauta or raskat and rab-salawat made from sugarcane or  from  molasses  shall  fall  within  the  definition  of ’agricultural  produce’ as contained in Section 2(a) of  the Uttar  Pradesh  Krishi  Utpadan  Mandi  Adhiniyam,  and  are exigible to market fee.  The view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court is not correct [1042C, 1043D] Rathi  Khandsari  Udyog etc. v. State of U.P. &  Ors.  etc., [1985]  2  S.C.R.  966;  Kishan Lal and  Ors.  v.  State  of Rajasthan & Ors., [1990) 2 S.C.R. 142; and Bharat Trading v. State of U.P. & Ors., WP (C) No. 9982 decided on 31st March, 1992, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  3111-16  of 1991. From  the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.90 of  the  Allahabad High  Court in W.P. No. 5627, 6163/88, 1193, 8415,  10360/89 and 1076 of 1990.                             WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 580 to 606 of 1993 & 4416 of 1991 E.C. Agrawala, Anant V. Palli, Atual Sharma, Mrs. Purnima  B at  Kak,  Mrs.  Rekha  Palli  and  Pradeep  Misra  for   the Appellants.  1039 C.S.  Vaidyanathan, R.K. Jain Ms. Bharti Sharma,  Mrs.  Rani Chhabra,  K.B.  Rohtagi  and  Ms.  Aparna  Rohtagi  for  the Respondents. The Judgment of he Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Computer Code No. 12964 of 1991. (In S.L.P. (C) No.           of 1991) Delinked.   See  separate  Order  in  the  concerned   file. Special  Leave granted in all the other petitions.   In  all the  above appeals the short controversy raised  is  whether gur-lauta  and  raskat and rab-galawat and  rab-salawat  are liable  to  the  levy of market fee under  the  U.P.  Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam of 1964 (hereinafter referred to  as ’the Act’). A  Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court  referred  the question  for  being considered by a Full Bench.   The  Full Bench of the High Court by decision dated 2.4.1990 held that gur-lauta and raskat and rab-galawat and salawat were not an agricultural   produce  within  the  meaning  of  the   Act. Subsequently  other Benches followed the aforesaid  decision of  the  Full  Bench.  All the above  appeals  by  grant  of Special Leave are directed against the Judgment of the  Full Bench  dated  2.4.1990 as well as the  subsequent  decisions following the Full Bench case. Section  2(a) of the Act defines ’agricultural produce’  and reads as under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             "2(a) ’agricultural produce’ means such  items               of   produce  of  agriculture,   horticulture,               viticulature,     apiculture,     sericulture,               pisciculture,  animal husbandry, or forest  as               are  specified  in the Schedule  and  includes               admixture  of two or more of such  items,  and               also includes any such item in processed form,               and   further  includes  gur,  rub,   shakkar,               khandsari and jaggery". It  may  be  mentioned that the  words  gur,  rab,  shakkar, khandsari and jaggery were added in the above definition  of agricultural  produce by U.P. Act No.10 of 1970.  To  decide the  controversy  raised in these cases  the  definition  of agricultural  produce  has to be  taken  into  consideration after  the  words added by the aforesaid U.P. Act  No.10  of 1970.   Sugarcane  is an agricultural produce out  of  which juice is extracted.  The said juice gets 1040 thickened  by dehydration and when it reaches  a  particular pigment, it takes the form of rab which is a semi solid form of  the sugarcane juice.  After the process of boiling  this rab  is  put  in a crystaliser where it is  allowed  to  get cooled  and crystals are formed when the same is rotated  in the  crystaliser.   The  crystalised rab is  then  put  into centrifugal  machines  in  which  through  the  process   of infusion  of  sulphur, the sugarcane juice  is  cleaned  and whitened. The rab which is not put into the centrifugal machine but is dehydrated  and is. allowed to be hardened by the  open  pan process  takes the shape of gur which is normally  used  for home consumption. The rab which is not allowed to be hardened is also sold  in semi solid form but those persons who desire to make further profits  put  the rab into centrifugal machines and  by  the process of infusion of sulphur they obtain khandsari in  the dry  powder/crystalised form and the waste of rab  which  is obtained in the liquid form is known as molasses. The  residue which is known as molasses is further  utilised by  many people by boiling in the open pans and the same  is again re-processed by cleaning and dehydrating and later  by sulphitation  is taken in powder form.  This  first  process out  of molasses of rab in the semi solid form is also  sold in  the market because this inferior quality  contains  less content  of sucrose and is called rab-galawat.   Rab-salawat is also prepared by the same process out of the molasses and is  further inferior quality of rab.  It has been  contended on behalf of the appellants that rab-galawat and rab-salawat are  thus  nothing  but different forms of  rab  although  a little  and/or  more  inferior  in  quality.   It  has  been contended  that the main ingredient being sugarcane  out  of which  juice is extracted and when gur, rab,  khandsari  and shakkar  have been added in the definition  of  agricultural produce,  the rab-galawat or rab-salawat being the  inferior forms of rab are necessarily an agricultural produce  within the above definition of agricultural produce. It has also been submitted that so far as gur-lauta or other forms  of  gur  like  kala-gur,  gur-budha  etc.,  are  also prepared from the molasses by re-boiling the molasses in the open  pans which is allowed to thicken after dehydration  in the boiling pans.  Thus it has been submitted that gur-lauta or gur-raskat is nothing else except inferior form of gur. On  the  other hand it has been contended on behalf  of  the respon-  1041 dents  that  the Full Bench of the High Court was  right  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

taking the view that molasses are a different product  which looses  its original character and being a residual  article after solidification of the natural article i.e.,  sugarcane juice, it cannot be said to be an agricultural produce.   It has  been  contended  that  molasses  itself  being  not  an agricultural  produce,  gur-lauta and raskat  prepared  from molasses cannot be held to be an agricultural produce. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf. of  the parties  and  have  perused the record.  A  perusal  of  the definition of agricultural produce under Section 2(a) of the Act  shows that apart from items of produce of  agriculture, horticulture,    viticulture,    apiculture,    sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the  Schedule the definition further ’includes admixture  of two  or more such items and thereafter it further  ’includes taking  any  such item in processed form and again  for  the third  time  the words used are ’and further  includes  gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery’.  It is a well  settled rule  of interpretation that where the legislature uses  the words ’means’ and ’includes’ such definition is to be  given a  wider meaning and is not exhaustive or restricted to  the items  contained or included in such definition.   Thus  the meaning of’ agricultural produce’ in the above definition is not  restricted to any products of agriculture as  specified in the Schedule but also includes such items which come into being  in  processed form and further  includes  such  items which are called as gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery If  we  look  the matter from  another  angle,  U.P.  Krishi Utpadan  Adhiniyam is’a beneficial legislation both for  the agriculturists  as  well as the traders.   It  provides  for collecting  market  fee  by  the  mandi  samities  from  the agricultural  produce brought for sale and purchase  in  the market  areas.  We find no ground or justification  to  take the view that the legislature though intended to levy market fee  by  mandi samities on gur and rab but may have  had  no intention of charging of market fee on inferior qualities of gur called as gur-lauta or raskat and similarly of  inferior qualities of rab called rab-galawat and rab-salawat.  We  do not  find any good reason to take the view, as contended  on behalf  of  the respondents, that the  gur-lauta  or  raskat being prepared from the molasses as such these items  should not  be  considered as agricultural produce.  It  cannot  be denied  that molasses is a syrup drained from the  sugarcane juice in the process of manufacturing sugar.  Similarly  rab is also a product prepared in the same process and 1042 rab-salawat and galawat are inferior forms of rab. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that gur- lauta  or  raskat is not fit for human consumption  and  the same is utilised for animal consumption as such cannot  fall within the definition of gur.  Even if for arguments sake it may be admitted that the aforementioned inferior quality  of gur  is  not fit for human consumption and is  utilised  for animal consumption, we do not see any reason to hold that on account  of such use or consumption the item cannot be  held as  an  agricultural  produce  within  the  meaning  of  its definition in Section 2(a) of the Act.  Thus in our view  an kinds  of rab and gur made from sugarcane or  from  molasses shall fall within the definition of rab and gur as contained in Section 2 (a) of the Act. In  Rathi Khandsari Udyog etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors  etc., [1985]  2  S.C.R.  966  this  court  while  considering  the definition of khandsari under Section 2 (a) of the Act  held as under :-               "The  Legislature  has  in  terms  encompassed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

             ’Khandsari’  within the definition of  Section               2(a) of the Act.  And the term ’Khandsari’  is               sufficiently  wide to cover all  varieties  of               khandsari  including the article  produced  by               the  factories like those of the  petitioners.               Besides  the  basic  premise  assumed  by  the               petitioners  that  the object of  the  Act  is               merely   to   protect   the   producers   from               exploitation is fallacious.  of course one  of               the main objects of the Act is to protect  the               producers  from being cheated by  unscrupulous               traders  in  the  matter  of  price,   weight,               payment,  unlawful market charges etc. and  to               render   them  immune  from  exploitation   as               indicated  by the ’prefatory note’ and by  the               provisions  contained in Section 16(i),  (ii),               (iii), (iv), (viii) etc.  While this is one of               the objects of the Act, it is not the sole  or               only object of the Act.  The Act has many more               objects  and a much wider perspective such  as               development  of  new market  areas,  efficient               collection of data, and processing of arrivals               in Mandis with a view to enable the World Bank               to  give  substantial economic  assistance  to               establish various markets in Uttar Pradesh  as               also protection of consumers and even  traders               from being exploited                1043               in the matter of quality, weight and price". In Kishan Lal and Ors. v.  Slate of Rajasthan & Ors., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 142 it was held as under:               "The  definition  of  the  word  ’agricultural               produce"  in  the  Act  includes  all  produce               whether  agricultural,  horticultural,  animal               husbandry  or  otherwise as specified  in  the               Schedule.   The  legislative power to  add  or               include  and define a word even  artificially,               apart, the definition which is not  exhaustive               but  inclusive,  neither  excludes  any   item               produced in mill or factories nor it  confines               its  width to produce from soil.   Nor  switch               over  from  indigenous  method  of   producing               anything  to scientific or  mechanical  method               changes  its  character.  To  say,  therefore,               that sugar being produced in mill or factories               could not be deemed to be agricultural produce               is  both  against the statutory  language  and               judicial interpretation of similar  provisions               of the Act in statutes of other States". In  Bharat  Trading v. State of U.P. & Ors.,  Writ  Petition (Civil) No. 9982 of 1983 decided on 31st March, 1992 it  was held that ’raskat’ is nothing more than an inferior  quality of  gur  and the same was held as  an  agricultural  produce within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act. Thus  we hold that gur  lauta or raskat and rab-galawat  and rab  salawat  fall within the  definition  of  ’agricultural produce’  as  contained in Section 2(a) of the Act  and  are exigible  to market fee under the Act and the view taken  by the  Full  Bench of the High Court is not correct.   In  the result  we allow all these appeals., set aside the  impugned judgments  of  the High Court and as a result of  which  the writ  petitions riled by tile respondents  stand  dismissed. No order as to costs. N.V.K. Appeals allowed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

1044