SHEONATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nine persons were tried for various offences by the 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge. Patna. The judge acquitted Ramnath and Madan of all charges. He convicted Sheonath, Matukdeo and Sarjoo under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. l000 each or in default to suffer imprisonment for six months. He convicted Satnarayan, Billat, Gullat and Bishwanath under Section 353 read with Section 149 and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each or in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three months. He convicted all of them under Section 147 but did not pass a separate sentence under it. He acquitted all of them of the charge under Section 395. The State of Bihar flied an appeal and a revision petition for enhancement of the sentence. The High Court allowed the appeal and revision petition in part. It convicted Sheonath, Matukdeo and Sarjoo, under Section 395 and sentenced them to undergoo rigorous imprisonment for two year' each, enhancement the sentences already imposed on them under Section 353 by adding. a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment against each of them and directed that the substantive sentence of imprisonment would run concurrently. It convicted Satnarayan, Billat and Gullat of offences under Section 395 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, enhanced the sentence imposed upon them under Section 153/149 by adding sentences of one year's rigorous imprisonment against each of them and directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently. It acquitted Bishwanath of all the charges. Sheonath, Matukdeo, Sarjoo, Satnarayan, Billat and Gullat have filed this appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.

(2.) The courts below have found the following facts:Maheshwar Datta Sharma was the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence Branch) exercising the powers of Assistant Supdt. of Sales Tax. He received information that the firm of Mohanlal Sitaram was maintaining incorrect account books at its secret gaddi at Adrakhghat. Marufganj in Patna City. In the afternoon of May 7,1959 he with a party of officers and inspectors of the Sales Tax Department raided the premises. After posting guards at the entrance and with the rest of the party he went upstairs. In the eastern room he found the munims Sarjoo Prasad and Matukdeo writing books of account. On an examination of the books of account and papers he found that double sets of books of account with discrepant and incorrect entries were being maintained with a view to evasion of sales tax. He seized the books and papers and packed them in a gunny bag. A seizure list was prepared. A copy of the list was offered to Matukdeo who refused to accept it. In the meantime a mob with the common intention of snatching away the seized books of account came upstairs. At the sight of the mob Sharma and some members of the party bolted the door of the closed verandah. Gullat, Billat and Satnarayan and other members of the mob attempted to break open the door of the verandah. Sharma and his party then went inside the central room with the bag containing the seized account books and bolted the door from inside. The mob broke open a door of the eastern room and went inside to the central room. There Sheonath, Matukdeo and Ramnath snatched away the bag from the possession of Sharma. It may be mentioned that Sheonath was the proprietor of the firm. These finding of fact are not challenged by Mr. Chari

(3.) The courts below found that the inspection, search and seizure were made by Sharma in the exercise of his powers under Section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act 1947. Mr. Chari attacked this finding. He contended that (1) the power of inspection, seizure and search under Section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, can be exercised only in a place of business declared by the dealer under the Act and the Rules and as the Gaddi at Adrakhghat was not such a place of business, the inspection, search and seizure were illegal and (2) that Sharma made the search and seizure in the course of an investigation of a cognizable offense, and as there was contravention of S. 165 (4) read with S. 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code the search and seizure were illegal. He also pleaded for the mitigation of the sentences.