Broken rice, it includes 'broken rice as part of rice'. But, to hold that this meant that 'broken rice' must include whole rice is to accept that part includes the whole. If the whole includes a part, it necessarily means that the part cannot possibly be equated with the whole. The natural, and, indeed, the only reasonably open logic would be: if the whole includes a part, nothing which is merely a part of the whole could be equated with the whole, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bathu Prakasa Rao, (1976) 3 SCC 301 (307): AIR 1976 SC 1845: 1976 Supp SCR 608.
View Judgments Citing this Phrase