Common parlance interpretation excludes dry fish from livestock, rendering the notification covering it invalid.

Dry fish was held not to fall within the statutory definition of livestock under the A. P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966. Applying the common parlance rule, the expression "fish" was construed as wet fish, while dry fish was treated as a distinct processed product that had lost its original identity. The notification was therefore invalid to the extent it included dry fish in the livestock schedule and was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether dry fish falls within the definition of livestock under Section 2(v) of the A. P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966, and whether the notification including dry fish in the livestock schedule was valid.

Analysis: The definition of livestock was read as covering only animals with life, together with poultry, fish and such other animals as may be declared by notification. The notification itself separated fish from the livestock group and specifically listed dry fish in the fish group, showing that dry fish was not treated as livestock. Applying the common parlance rule, the term fish was held to denote wet fish, not dry fish. The reasoning that fish remains fish even after processing was rejected because dry fish is a different product and has lost its original identity.

Conclusion: Dry fish does not fall within the statutory definition of livestock, and the notification insofar as it included dry fish in Schedule II was invalid and liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute uses a term in a regulatory or penal context, it must be construed in its ordinary common parlance sense, and a processed product will not fall within the original category unless the statute or valid notification clearly includes it.

---