Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 660 1993 SLD 660 1993 SCMR 920
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.387-K of 1990, decision dated: 21stDecember, 1992(On appeal from the judgment of the High Courtof Sindh at Karachi dated 14-9-1989 .passed in C. P. No.D-77of 1988)
AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ

M/s. MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITEDGOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Sindh and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Agricultural Produce Markets Act (V of 1939)---Preamble---Sugar Factories Control Act (XXII of 1950), Preamble---Both the statutes co-exist, are operative side by side and are not repugnant to or in conflict with each other. The Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 and the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, co-exist and are operative side by side for the reason that although they pertain to the subject of sugar-cane but occupy different fields without element of overlapping in their provisions. The Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, provides for regulating the supply of sugar-cane intended for use in such factories and the price at which it may be purchased and for such other matters as may be incidental thereto. Under the said Act, Sugarcane Control Board is set up and Cane Commissioner is appointed and as contemplated under section 10 thereof, Cane Commissioner is authorised to declare any area to be reserved area for the purposes of supply of cane to a particular factory during a particular crushing season or seasons. As against that preamble of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 provides for the better regulation of the purchase and sale of agricultural produce of sugar-cane in the Province and for that purpose to establish markets and make rules for their proper administration. Both laws are thus not repugnant to or in conflict with each other. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- Fiscal statute requires strict construction. (c) Agricultural Produce Markets Act (V of 1939)--S 3 & 4---Words "shall", "such" and "area" used in Ss.3 & 4---Connotation--­Provision of S. 3 being procedural in nature and no penalty having been prescribed under it word "shall" used therein was directory and not mandatory---Non-mentioning of "sugar-cane" as "agricultural produce" in the notice under S. 3 would cause no prejudice to the Sugar Mill in any manner when the Mill had full knowledge that it had to obtain licence for payment of market fee in respect of purchase of sugarcane from growers. Scheme of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 shows very clearly that it has been enacted for better regulation for purchase and sale of agricultural produce and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492