Mandatory newspaper publication under market law invalidates an unnotified section 6(5) notification and defeats prosecution.

Section 6(1) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964 is read to require Gujarati newspaper publication for every notification issued under section 6, including a section 6(5) notification, because the phrase "this section" covers the entire statutory scheme and the use of "shall" indicates a mandatory condition designed to secure effective public notice. A notification enlarging the list of agricultural produce is therefore invalid if not so published, and any prosecution founded on that notification cannot stand. On that reasoning, the conviction was set aside, the acquittal restored, and the fine ordered to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the requirement in section 6(1) that a notification be published in Gujarati in a newspaper applies to a notification issued under section 6(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964; and whether that publication requirement is mandatory or merely directory.

Analysis: Section 6(1) uses the words "this section", which, read in their plain and natural sense, extend the newspaper-publication requirement to every notification issued under section 6, including one under section 6(5). The scheme of sections 5 and 6 shows that the initial declaration, objections, final declaration, and later inclusion or exclusion of areas or produce are all part of a single statutory publicity and hearing process. The additional publication in a Gujarati newspaper is intended to give adequate notice to traders and agriculturists whose rights are affected, and the use of the word "shall" in that context indicates a command rather than an option. The legislative history, including the change from the earlier Bombay Act where publication was expressed as permissive, confirms that the Gujarat legislature deliberately made the requirement obligatory.

Conclusion: The publication requirement applies to notifications under section 6(5) and is mandatory.

Issue: Whether the notification adding new agricultural produce under section 6(5) was legally valid and could sustain the prosecution.

Analysis: The notification under section 6(5) had not been published in a newspaper in Gujarati at all. Since such publication was a mandatory condition precedent to the validity of the notification, the inclusion of the new produce lacked legal force. A prosecution for breach of the Act could not therefore rest on that notification.

Conclusion: The notification was invalid and the prosecution could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was set aside, the acquittal restored, and the fine directed to be refunded, leaving the appellant free from liability on the impugned prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires a notification to be published in a specified manner as part of the procedure for altering the regulatory scope of the notification, that publication requirement is mandatory when the statutory scheme and legislative purpose show that effective public notice is essential to validity.

---