SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada, involves the interpretation of second proviso to Sec. 6a (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short ). ( 2 ) THE learned single Judge held that for the release of the vehicle in lieu of its confiscation, the fine payable shall not exceed the market price of the essential commodity carried by the vehicle and not the market value of the vehicle. The state (through the Dy. Commissioner) is aggrieved by this interpretation. ( 3 ) SEC. 6a (1) reads as follows:-"6a : Confiscation of essential commodity- (1) where any essential commodity is seized, in pursuance of an order under sections in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the collector of the district or the Presidency-town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, may order confiscation of- (a) the essential commodity so seized; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act no food- grains or edible oilseeds seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section. Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance". This has to be read with Sec. 66 (2) which is as follows : -"6b. This has to be read with Sec. 66 (2) which is as follows : -"6b. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of essential commodity- (1) xx xx xx (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6a if the owner of the animal, vehicle vessel or other conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that it was used in carrying the essential commodity without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use". ( 4 ) THE primary target of Sec. 6a is the essential commodity. Its object is to deter a person from dealing in an essential commodity illegally. Transportation of an essential commodity which is dealt illegally, is an act, according to the learned govt. Advocate, equally illegal and the said act of carrying an essential commodity calls for an equally severe punishment, such as the confiscation of the vehicle. It was argued, that, the fine payable under the second proviso to Sec. 6a (1) which may be termed as a redemption fine, is for the release of the vehicle, and hence the fine should co-relate to the value of the vehicle. Since the owner of the vehicle in which the essential commodity is carried, with his knowledge, connives in the illicit activity he has to be punished by confiscation of the vehicle. It was further contended by the learned govt. Advocate that the reference to words "essential commodity" in the said second proviso was descriptive of the vehicle, used to denote the vehicle as the one in which the concerned essential commodity was sought to be carried. ( 5 ) SRI Ashok Harnahalli, learned counsel for the respondent, urged, that, the scope for interpretation arises in view of the omission to use proper punctuations by putting markings of a (,) comma, at two places, so that the relevant clause should be read with punctuations as follows :". . . . . . ( 5 ) SRI Ashok Harnahalli, learned counsel for the respondent, urged, that, the scope for interpretation arises in view of the omission to use proper punctuations by putting markings of a (,) comma, at two places, so that the relevant clause should be read with punctuations as follows :". . . . . . THE owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price, at the date of seizure, of the essential commodity sought to be carried. . . . ". The learned counsel also pointed out that, even if no comma is to be put after the words 'market price', but after the words 'date of seizure', even then, the idea will be clear. He tried to derive support from the principles of interpretation stated by maxwell and other citations. ( 6 ) IN Statutory Construction by crawford, (1940 edn) at page 343 it is stated,-". . . . THE punctuation will not control the plain meaning of the text of an enactment. It is subordinate to the text and the retention of a word is of far more importance than the position of a comma". The learned Author, at the same time pointed out that on occasions, the punctuation may lend assistance in the construction of the statute. Ultimately, the intention of the legislature in enacting the particular provision has to be gathered from the language employed, without unduly injurying the said language. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned government Advocate presupposes that in all cases of seizure of essential commodities, the value of the seized article will be less than the value of the vehicle, animal or the vessel in question. Such an assumption is not warranted. Essential commodity of vast value may be found being carried in a vehicle, or on an animal of lesser value. It the contention of the appellant is accepted, the owner of the conveyance, though a party to the illicit transaction in respect of such essential commodity of great value, will get away by paying a fine within the limits of the value of the conveyance. ( 8 ) INTERPRETATION of the provisions of law is not dependent upon the facts of a particular case. Law should govern all situations and has to be interpreted accordingly. ( 8 ) INTERPRETATION of the provisions of law is not dependent upon the facts of a particular case. Law should govern all situations and has to be interpreted accordingly. Further, the interpretation of the provision should be in the context of the particular legislation and the purpose sought to be achieved by it. ( 9 ) THE subject of the law, here, is the essential commodity. Purpose of Sec. 6a is to impose a deterrent penalty against a person dealing in essential commodity illegally. While imposing the penalty, the provision of law takes care to prevent the owner of any conveyance from aiding or assisting such an illegal activity. The gravity of the misconduct of the owner of the conveyance, has to be measured with reference to the value of the goods involved. The main person to be punished for the illicit transaction is the owner of the goods, by its confiscation. Owner of the conveyance is not to be burdened with a greater penalty than the penalty imposed on the owner of the goods. However, if the value of the goods is more than the value of the conveyance, the redemption fine leviable on the owner of the conveyance, may exceed the value of the vehicle. This is so, because, the magnitude of the contraventions of the law in respect of the essential commodity is large. If the appellant's contention is acceptable, then the relevant clause in the proviso will have to be read as,-". . . . A fine not exceeding its market price at the date of the seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by. . . . " or simply as ". . . . a fine not exceeding its market price at the time of seizure. "in such a case, there was no need to have several other words and the idea would have been conveyed in a simple form. ( 10 ) VERBOSITY cannot be attributed to the legislature. Rules of interpretation require a presumption that the legislature intended every part of the statute should have effect and the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain (vide Principles of Statutory Construction by G. P. Singh-2nd edn. page 43 ). ( 10 ) VERBOSITY cannot be attributed to the legislature. Rules of interpretation require a presumption that the legislature intended every part of the statute should have effect and the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain (vide Principles of Statutory Construction by G. P. Singh-2nd edn. page 43 ). In the context of this Act, the provisions of Sec. 6a are to be interpreted as to impose a penalty bearing a relationship to the subject matter of the offence, which here is the essential commodity. ( 11 ) IT is also incorrect to say that the subject matter of the proviso being the confiscation of the vehicle (or other forms of conveyance), to seek its release the penally should be the value of the vehicle. If that is the intention, proviso would have provided for the payment of the market value of the vehicle in all cases. The proviso vests a discretion in the authority to quantify the fine, in lieu of confiscation, subject to the maximum stated in the provision under interpretation. The fine is not a compensation payable to get back the vehicle in question. Fine is levied for being party to the offence. The owner of the vehicle, by lending a helping hand to carry the essential commodity, becomes an a better of the statutory offence. Therefore, the fine, measured, proportionately in terms of the value of the essential commodity is levied and option given to the owner of the vehicle either to pay it or give up his vehicle. Such a provision is not a fresh innovation under the Act. A similar provision is found under Sec. 115 (2) of the customs Act, 1962, proviso of which reads as follows :"provided that where any such conveyance is used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of any conveyance shall be given an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the conveyance a fine not exceeding the market price of the goods which are sought to be smuggled or the smuggled goods, as the case may be. Explanation-In this section, 'market price' means market price at the date when the goods are seized". The language of this proviso in Customs act is no doubt very clear. The idea sought to be conveyed by the proviso to sec. Explanation-In this section, 'market price' means market price at the date when the goods are seized". The language of this proviso in Customs act is no doubt very clear. The idea sought to be conveyed by the proviso to sec. 6a (1) of the Act seems to us, is the same. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing, the appellant's contention has to be rejected. ( 13 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and is dismissed, without any order as to costs. Writ appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .