Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Before we examine the three contentions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to state that history of legislation in regard to rotten gur. On 3rd May 1950, after the Bombay Prohibition Act was enacted in 1949, the Government of Bombay issued an Order under Clause (b) of Section 139 of the Act. "Rotten gur" was defined in that order in the following terms:

rotten gur" means gur containing less than 50 per cent sucrose and more than 20 per cent reducing sugars.
Paragraph 2 of that order prohibited the sale of rotten gur within the limits of the State of Bombay except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence issued under that order. Paragraphs 3 and 4 laid down the procedure for making application for obtaining a licence to deal in 'rotten gur'. The form of licence and the conditions annexed thereto were also a part of that Order. We may state that that Order not only was applicable to 'rotten gur' but also to 'rotten dates'. We are not concerned in these cases with 'rotten dates'. Therefore, we are referring to that order only for the purpose of 'rotten gur'.
Whoever in contravention of the provisions of this Act, or any rule, regulation or order made or of any licence, permit, pass or authorisation granted thereunder possesses, manufactures, uses or consumes rotten gur or ammonium chloride shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees Section 70A is a penal section. It provides for the consequences of violation, inter alia, of Section 64 and Section 64A. and the rules, regulations or orders issued thereunder. Mr. Nanavaty has argued that Section 64 and Section 64A prohibit the possession, manufacture, use and consumption of rotten gur. The argument advanced by Mr. Nanavaty is not well-founded All that those two sections provide for is the regulation of possession, manufacture, use and consumption of rotten gur. There is no doubt or dispute about the fact that "rotten gur" was diverted to the channels of illicit distillation of liquor which defeated the prohibition policy of the State. The prohibition policy as enacted in the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, was held by the Supreme Court lawful and valid as early as in 1951. Article 47 in Part IV of the Constitution enjoins upon the State the duty to pay regard to the "raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health" and further enjoins upon the state to "endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health". Ex facie, if the State Legislature in order to plug loopholes which were found in the working of prohibition policy in the State and with the object of enforcing its prohibition policy with greater efficiency enacted Sections 64 and 64A by which possession, manufacture, use and consumption, of 'rotten gur' has been regulated, it cannot be said that it did something which it otherwise could not have done.

14. On behalf of the State, Mr. J.U. Mehta has argued that the impugned legislation does not attract the provisions of Article 301 and that, therefore, the question whether the relevant provisions of Article 304 were complied with or does not arise.

15. Before we examine in details the submission made by Mr. Mehta, it is necessary to remember that prima facie provisions of Article 301 would be attracted to the impugned legislation because possession, manufacture, use and consumption of rotten gur necessarily imply business, trade and commerce in it. It is idle to think that a person may possess rotten gur in any quantity he likes unless he has the intention to carry on trade commerce therein. Similarly, a manufacturer who manufactures rotten gur does so for the purpose of carrying on business therein. Similarly, rotten gur can be used for business purpose. Therefore, regulation of possession, manufacture, use or consumption or rotten gur necessarily implies regulation of trade and commerce therein irrespective of whether it is intra-State trade and commerce or inter-State trade and commerce. li is in this light that prima-facie the provisions of Article 301 are attracted to the impugned legislation.

"rotten gur" means the article known as gur. gul, jaggery, palmyra jaggery or rab and other intermediary product prepared by boiling or processing juice pressed out of sugar cane or extracted from palmyra palm, date palm, sago palm brab palm or conconut palm, with or without admixture of molasses, and which is in a liquid form or a semi-liquid or viscous form and which has a dark brown or a black colour.
The earlier part of the expression refers to several sources of rotten gur to which we need not advert. The subsequent part of this definition provides that it must be in a liquid form or a semi-liquid or viscous form and it must have a dark brown or a black colour. It is necessary to note that gur in solid or Jump form is not covered by this definition. The "Monograph on the Gur Industry of India" to which we have referred in the earlier part of this judgment does not deal with liquid form of gur nor does it deal with viscous form of gur. "Viscous" has been defined in Oxford Dictionary as having a glutinous or gluey character. This part of the definition, in our opinion, cannot be challenged on the ground that it is vague and indefinite because it prescribes the form and the colour of gur which can be termed as a rotten gur. So far as the form is concerned, it may be in a liquid from or in a viscous form. It may as well be in a semi-liquid form to which the reference has been made in the "Monograph on the Gur Industry of India" to which we have referred. Our attention has not been invited to anything which shows that the gur in semi-liquid form having a dark brown or black colour is edible or can be consumed by human beings. Gur in liquid form and viscous form appears to us to be unfit for human consumption. It cannot be so in case of gur in semi-liquid form. However, irrespective of whether such a gur can be consumed by human beings or not, what the State Government has done is to regulate trade and business in gur which can be identified definitely with reference to the first part of the definition. Therefore, what has been regulated by the State Legislature is gur in liquid form or semi-liquid form or viscous form having a dark brown or black colour. These are objective tests. Whether prosecution launched in respect of rotten gur under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, will succeed or fail will depend upon the report of a Chemical Analyser or a Public Analyst showing whether a particular gur or sample in which an accused has been dealing answers the description given in the first part. It is difficult to say that the first part of the definition of "rotten gur" requires the subjective satisfaction of the police or the State Government. We do not think we can take such a view. Mr. Mehta who appears on behalf of the State of Gujarat has also not canvassed such a view before us. To take any such view is to leave the bread and the liberty of the citizens to the whim and caprice of the State Government. In our opinion, however, that is not the effect which the first part of the definition of rotten gur produces when the first part Jays down the objective test with reference to which whether a particular gur is rotten gur or not can be determined. The first part, therefore, is incapable of being exposed to the charge of vagueness or indefiniteness.