TMI Blog1960 (2) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns Judge, Hoshangabad, who dismissed it. He has, therefore, filed this petition for revision against the conviction and the sentence. 2.. The petitioner dealt in timber, charcoal and firewood during the period 1st June, 1949, to 26th July, 1950, but did not register himself as a dealer. The prosecution case was that during that period his turnover exceeded Rs. 5,000 per year and he was, therefore, liable to register himself as a dealer under the Act. In omitting to do so, he committed an offence under section 24(1)(a) read with section 8(1) of the Act. The petitioner applied for registering him as a dealer on 26th July, 1950, (exhibit P-12) and he was then registered as such. 3.. The trial court found that the petitioner carried on busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (1) of section 8 of the Act, and thereby committing an offence punishable under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 24 of the said Act." It is pertinent to observe that the sanction does not specify the period during which the business was carried on. The sanction itself is dated 9th February, 1956, and it may refer to any period prior to that date. In fact, facts constituting the offence have not at all been stated in the sanction. 6.. In Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The KingA.I.R. 1948 P.C. 82. the question of the requisites of a sanction under clause 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943, has been considered. It was observed that: "In order to comply with the provisions of clause 23, it must be proved that the sancti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot themselves show what the facts before the sanctioning authority were, would lead to the conclusion that the Commissioner applied his mind to the facts of the case. No attempt has been made during the trial to show that the Sales Tax Commissioner had the necessary facts before him. Under the circumstances, the contention that the sanction is invalid must be accepted. 7.. Shri A.R. Choubey for the petitioner stated at the time of arguments that I should not decide the other points raised by him in this case, if I agreed that the sanction was invalid, as that might prejudice the petitioner, if he is tried for the offence in future after proper sanction. It is not, therefore, necessary for me to go into the other contentions raised before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
