9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1962 (9) TMI 42 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether in the circumstances of this case it can be said that criminal force was used to the Inspector of Sales Tax? Whether an act of the kind proved in the case before us falls under section 353 Indian Penal Code? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Do not agree with the suggestion implicit in the concluding part of his judgment that where the facts disclose an offence under section 26 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act resort should rather be had to the provisions of that section than to the general law even if the act amounts to an offence under the general law.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the act of snatching account books constitutes the use of force under Section 349, IPC. 2. Whether the appellant's actions amounted to the use of criminal force under Section 350, IPC. 3. The legality of the inspection and seizure of account books by the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes. 4. Whether the prosecution under Section 353, IPC, was valid without the Commissioner's sanction as required under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. 5. The applicability of Section 26(1)(h) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, in the context of the appellant's actions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Use of Force under Section 349, IPC: The court examined whether the appellant's act of snatching the account books from Mr. Singh constituted "force" as defined in Section 349, IPC. The court noted that "force" involves causing motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to another person. By snatching the books, the appellant caused a jerk to Mr. Singh's hands, thus causing motion. The court concluded that the appellant's action amounted to the use of force as per Section 349, IPC. 2. Use of Criminal Force under Section 350, IPC: The court further analyzed whether the force used by the appellant was "criminal force" under Section 350, IPC. It was established that mere use of force is insufficient; it must be intentional and aimed at causing injury, fear, or annoyance. The court rejected the appellant's contention that there was no intention to cause annoyance or that Mr. Singh was not justifiably annoyed. The court found that the appellant's act indeed caused annoyance to Mr. Singh, thereby constituting criminal force. 3. Legality of Inspection and Seizure: The appellant argued that Mr. Singh had no right to inspect the account books without permission, citing Section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and Rule 50 of the Rules under the Act. The court clarified that the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes had the authority to inspect the books without prior notice, as per the delegated powers and the provisions allowing surprise visits. Mr. Singh's actions were lawful, and the appellant had no justification to snatch the books. 4. Prosecution under Section 353, IPC, without Sanction: The appellant contended that the prosecution required the Commissioner's sanction under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The court clarified that the appellant was prosecuted under Section 353, IPC, which does not require such sanction. The court dismissed the argument that the prosecution was colorable or intended to bypass the need for sanction, emphasizing that Section 353, IPC, addresses a graver offense with more severe penalties. 5. Applicability of Section 26(1)(h) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947: The court acknowledged that the appellant's actions could also constitute an offense under Section 26(1)(h) of the Act, which deals with obstruction of an officer. However, the court emphasized that the prosecution's decision to proceed under Section 353, IPC, was valid and within legal bounds. The court rejected the notion that the prosecution should be limited to the minor offense under the Sales Tax Act, underscoring that more serious offenses should not go unpunished. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction under Section 353, IPC. The judgment highlighted that the appellant's actions constituted the use of criminal force and obstruction of an officer, validating the prosecution's approach and the legal basis for the conviction.
|
