CHERIYAKKAN CHETTIAR Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Petition filed by the accused who has been convicted by the Munsiff - Magistrate of Quilandy for an offence punishable under S.19(c) of the General Sales Tax Act - Act XI of 1125 - (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accused is a grocery merchant in Kollam Bazaar in Quilandy. On 7-9-1960 Pw. 1, the Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, North Zone, Kozhikode, with his two Inspectors Pws. 2 and 3 and his Peon Pw. 4 visited the shop of the accused. Certain books of account were produced and they were inspected. There was a Godrej Almirah kept in the shop. On suspicion that the almirah might contain some account books, Pw. 1 wanted the accused to open the almirah for his inspection. He also wanted the accused to show his godowns and open them for his inspection. The accused refused to comply with the request. So a formal notice demanding compliance was issued. The accused refused to accept the notice and it had to be served by affixture. Even then the dealer would not open the almirah for inspection and so Pw. 1 had to return without inspecting. The accused was therefore, prosecuted.

(2.) The accused denied commission of the offence and stated that Pw. 1 never asked him to open the almirah or asked him to point out the godowns, that the almirah was in fact not locked at all and that a false case had been foisted on him due to personal enmity. The Accountant of the accused was examined as the only witness for the defence. The learned Magistrate rejected the defence evidence, believed the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and found that the accused had prevented or obstructed inspection as contemplated under S.17 (2) of the Act and convicted the accused of the offence charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. As the sentence is non appealable this Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) That Pw. 1 visited the shop, that demand was made to open the almirah for inspection and it was refused has been amply proved by the prosecution. The witnesses have been believed by the courts below and in revision it is not open to the petitioner to challenge this finding. I have also scrutinised the evidence and I find no reason to differ from the conclusions reached by the learned Magistrate.