KRISHNA CHETTIAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals against the judgment of the High court of Judicature at Madras convicting the two appellants under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing the sentence of Herons imprisonment for three months. The appellant in Criminal appeal No. 150 of 1963 has also been convicted under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and a sentence of a like term of imprisonment has been imposed on him but the two sentences in his case are to run concurrently. The appellants now appeal by special leave granted by this court. The facts of the case are as follows : On 6/01/1961, at about 10-30 in the morning the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Salem (P. W. 1) in the company of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Salem (P. W. 2) and certain other staff made a surprise visit to the business premines of Messrs Vasantha Rice Mill situated at Salem to inspect the account and to check the stocks of foodgrains. The mill belonged to Krishna Chettiar, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1963. Rarnamurthy, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1963, is the accountant of the mill. The mill consists of office premises and godowns and there is also a threshing-floor. Further beyond the godowns is another building which, in the case, is called the old sago factory building. When the officer of the Sales Tax Department arrived at the factory Krishna Chettiar agreed to produce the accounts and the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and the peons proceeded to the sago factory building to take stock of the foraging lying in stock. At the sago factory building, the peons found Ramamurthy putting some account books in a gunny bag and trying to run away by the back door of the factory. Seeing this, the two Commercial Tax Officers gave chase and the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer carried the gunny bag and proceeded to the main office in. order to examine the books, when Krishna Chettiar came near the sago factory building and attempted to snatch it from him. It is the prosecution case that to do this, Krishna Chettiar had to hit the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on his left hand to weaken his grip on the gunny bag. As even this did not make the two Commercial Tax Officers to let go to the gunny bag, Krishna Chettiar called for help from the men from the threshing-floor and with the assistance of Ramamurthy and others, he succeeded in snatching the gunny bag containing the account books and handed them over to Ramamurthy, who ran away with them. The prosecution case is that the two Commercial Tax Officers were pushed against the wall by Krishna Chettiar. The Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer sustained some abrasions on his left hand and the watch strap of one of the peons was broken. It is in evidence that these account books were never found again.

(2.) On these facts prosecution was launched against Krishna Chettiar and Ramamurthy under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. Krishna Chettiar was further charged under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code as already mentioned. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Salem, who tried the case, acquitted the accused under section 251a (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An appeal was taken to the High court by the State government under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This resulted in the reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the two appellants before us as has been stated earlier. It may be mentioned here that along with these two appellants, there were two other accused in the case who were also tried under section 186, Indian Penal Code, and similarly acquitted by the trial court, but were convicted by the High court, on appeal. Of these, only three appealed but the third appellant Natesan by name, has not pressed his appeal and we are thus left with Krishna Chettiar and Ramamurthy only.

(3.) The Additional First Class Magistrate, Salem, recorded an acquittal giving many reasons of fact and law. His main reason, however, was that the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had admitted in the witness-box that he had not entertained any suspicion of evasion of tax by Krishna Chettiar and that he had not recorded his reasons in writing for conducting the search as required by section 41 (3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with section 165 of the Code of Criminal : Procedure. He accordingly held that both the search and the seizure of the ; account books were illegal. Following a decision of this court reported in State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that no conviction could be recorded, because the appellants were entitled to resist an illegal search. Other reasons on the ground of fact were also given, but with those, we do not wish to concern ourselves in these appeals.