Case: Edward Keventer Pvt.Ltd Vs. Bihar State Agrl.Mkt.Board

the tray packing machine, where it is accumulated in trays. The said tray containing the fruit drink pack is then shrink wrapped by means of the shrink wrapper machine. After everything is completed, the fruit drink packs are kept under incubation for a period of seven days for detection of growth of any microorganism, organoliptic test is also conducted for testing the colour and taste of the beverage. After all that the `Frooti and `Appy are ready for being delivered in the market." 5. A perusal of Section 2(1)(a) unambiguously shows that the agricultural produce which are to be covered by the sweep of the Act necessarily has to be specified in the Schedule. If any agricultural produce is not specified in the Schedule, it goes beyond the purview of the Act and respondent has no power to levy fee on such produce. In the Schedule under caption `fruits mango and apple have been specified as agricultural produce. We further find in the Schedule that under caption `cereals wheat is specified at item No. 3, whereas `wheat atta `sujji and `maida which are the products of wheat are separately specified at item Nos. 14, 15 and 16, respectively. This shows that the agricultural produce `wheat has been treated as a separate agricultural produce as compared to its own product manufactured out of `wheat namely, `atta, `sujji and `maida. `Atta, `sujji and `maida are basically the agricultural products of `wheat. Similarly, the Schedule shows that under the caption `Animal Husbandary Product, milk excluding liquid milk is specified at item No. 10 whereas `butter, `ghee, `cream, and `khoya which are manufactured out of milk are separately specified at item Nos. 7, 8, 16, 17 & 19 respectively. Under caption `miscellaneous, `mango pickles is specified at items No. 18 `Mango pickles is a product of mango, which is a fruit; and specified in Schedule but `mango pickles have been specified separately. The shows basic ingredients may be the same but the end product which is known differently is treated as a separate item. It is true `Frooti and `Appy are manufactured out of mango pulp and apple concentrate, but after the mango pulps and apple concentrate are processed and beverages are manufactured, the products become entirely different items and the fruits mango and apply loose their identity. In common parlance, these beverages are no longer known as mango and apple as fruits. In other words, after processing manago pulp and apple concentrate, although the basic character of the mango pulp and apple concentrate may be present in beverages, but the end products are not fruits i.e. mango and apple which are specified in the Schedule. Our views also find support from a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1999(9) SCC, 620 wherein it was held that Lactodex and Raptakos which are baby foods do fall under the description milk, specified in the Schedule of the Act. Under such circumstances, we find that the products like `Frooti and `Appy which are ready to serve beverages not being specified in the Schedule are not covered by the term agricultural produce, as defined in Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. 6. Learned Additional Solicitor General then cited a decision of this Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and another v. Ms Shankar Industries and others, 1993 Supp. (3) SCc 361(II) for the proposition that the meaning of `agriculture produce in the definition is not restricted to any products of agriculture specified in the Schedule, but also include such items which come into being in the processed form, and has strongly relied para 12 of the said decision, which reads as under: "We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. A perusal of the definition of agriculture produce under Section 2(a) of the Act shows that apart from items of produce of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, piculture, 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." We are of the view that the said decision is wholly inapplicable to the present controversy. In the Uttar Pradesh Act, the agricultural produce is defined as under: "Section 2(a) `agricultural produce means such items of produce of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandary 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, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery." 7. The controversy in the case of Krishi Utpadan Samiti (supra), was whether gur-lauta and raskat and rabgolawat and salawat, which are products of molasses, are agricultural produce. This Court while interpreting word `means and `includes used in the definition, was of the view that these words have to be given wider meaning and processed item of a good specified in Schedule would be agricultural produce. In U.P. Act, the definition of `agricultural produce provided that any processed item of a specified good is an agricultural produce. Such is not the definition of `agricultural produce in the Bihar Act with which we are concerned in the present case.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]5. A perusal of Section 2(1)(a) unambiguously shows that the agricultural produce which are to be covered by the sweep of the Act necessarily has to be specified in the Schedule. If any agricultural produce is not specified in the Schedule, it goes beyond the purview of the Act and respondent has no power to levy fee on such produce. In the Schedule under caption `fruits mango and apple have been specified as agricultural produce. We further find in the Schedule that under caption `cereals wheat is specified at item No. 3, whereas `wheat atta `sujji and `maida which are the products of wheat are separately specified at item Nos. 14, 15 and 16, respectively. This shows that the agricultural produce `wheat has been treated as a separate agricultural produce as compared to its own product manufactured out of `wheat namely, `atta, `sujji and `maida. `Atta, `sujji and `maida are basically the agricultural products of `wheat. Similarly, the Schedule shows that under the caption `Animal Husbandary Product, milk excluding liquid milk is specified at item No. 10 whereas `butter, `ghee, `cream, and `khoya which are manufactured out of milk are separately specified at item Nos. 7, 8, 16, 17 & 19 respectively. Under caption `miscellaneous, `mango pickles is specified at items No. 18 `Mango pickles is a product of mango, which is a fruit; and specified in Schedule but `mango pickles have been specified separately. The shows basic ingredients may be the same but the end product which is known differently is treated as a separate item. It is true `Frooti and `Appy are manufactured out of mango pulp and apple concentrate, but after the mango pulps and apple concentrate are processed and beverages are manufactured, the products become entirely different items and the fruits mango and apply loose their identity. In common parlance, these beverages are no longer known as mango and apple as fruits. In other words, after processing manago pulp and apple concentrate, although the basic character of the mango pulp and apple concentrate may be present in beverages, but the end products are not fruits i.e. mango and apple which are specified in the Schedule. Our views also find support from a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1999(9) SCC, 620 wherein it was held that Lactodex and Raptakos which are baby foods do fall under the description milk, specified in the Schedule of the Act. Under such circumstances, we find that the products like `Frooti and `Appy which are ready to serve beverages not being specified in the Schedule are not covered by the term agricultural produce, as defined in Section 2(1)(a) of theare of the view that the said decision is wholly inapplicable to the present controversy.The controversy in the case of Krishi Utpadan Samiti (supra), was whetherand raskat and rabgolawat and salawat, which are products of molasses, are agricultural produce. This Court while interpreting word `means and `includes used in the definition, was of the view that these words have to be given wider meaning and processed item of a good specified in Schedule would be agricultural produce. In U.P. Act, the definition of `agricultural produce provided that any processed item of a specified good is an agricultural produce. Such is not the definition of `agricultural produce in the Bihar Act with which we are concerned in the present case.