Certainty in criminal regulatory orders barred prosecution where motor-car tyres and tubes were not clearly covered.

Motor-car tyres and tubes were not shown with sufficient certainty to fall within item 1 of Schedule I in the order then in force. The surrounding drafting pattern and comparable notifications indicated that, where tyres and tubes were intended to be included, they were expressly specified; the later Bihar notification adding tyres and tubes to various vehicles reinforced that reading. The criminal law requirement of clear notice also mattered: a dealer could not be prosecuted unless the order gave an ascertainable standard and fair warning of the duty to display price and stock particulars. On that basis, the prosecution was treated as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether motor tyres and motor tubes were covered by item 1 of Schedule I to the Order as it stood in May 1969, and whether the prosecution could stand when the mandate was not sufficiently clear to give dealers reasonable notice of the prohibited conduct.

Analysis: Item 1 referred to component parts and accessories of automobiles, but the surrounding schedule and the drafting pattern of comparable notifications showed that tyres and tubes of motor cars had been separately specified where they were intended to be included. The later Bihar notification expressly adding tyres and tubes of cars, buses, jeeps, vans, trucks and other automobiles strengthened the inference that the pre-existing order did not clearly cover motor-car tyres and tubes. The criminal law requirement of certainty also applied: a dealer could not be exposed to prosecution unless the order furnished an ascertainable standard and fair warning of the obligation to display price and stock particulars. On that footing, the High Court was justified in treating the prosecution as misconceived.

Conclusion: Motor-car tyres and tubes were not shown with sufficient certainty to fall within the order as then in force, and the prosecution could not be sustained.

---