STATE OF KERALA Vs. M M MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals and revisions arise from three cases, C. C. Nos. 90, 91 and 92 of 1970 on the file of the District Magistrate, Kottayam. The accused, two in number, in all these cases are the partners of a firm called Kallupalam Lad's Jewellery Mart, doing jewellery business at Kottayam. While the prosecution in C. C. 90 of 1970 was under S. 46 (1) (a) of the Kerala general Sales-tax Act, for short, the Act, for submission of untrue returns the prosecution in the other two cases, which related to two different years, was under S. 46 (1) (c) of the Act for failure to keep true and complete accounts and S. 46 (2) (c) of the Act for fraudulent evasion of payment of tax. In respect of the charge under S. 46 (2) (c) of the Act the District Magistrate acquitted the accused. But they were convicted in C. C. 90 of 1970 under S. 46 (1) (a) of the Act and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for eight days and in C. C. Nos. 91 and 92 of 1970 under S. 46 (1) (c) of the Act and each of them was sentenced in each of those cases to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to undergo imprisonment for one week. In the appeals filed by the accused before the Sessions Court, kottayam, their convictions and sentences in all the three cases were set aside and they were acquitted. The appeals are by the State from the acquittal and the revision cases are those taken up suo mote on perusal of the judgments in the three cases.

(2.) ON February 20, 1970 certain officers of the Sales-tax department inspected the place of business of the accused which is in the ground and first floors of a storied building at Kottayam. The ground floor is used by the artisans employed in the firm for manufacture of jewellery. The entire first floor is a big hall. That has been converted into several rooms, the partitioning being made with shelves. In the eastern room of the hall jewellery business is being conducted and in the western room an auto stores called Kallupalam Auto Stores, belonging to one Marikutty. Marikutty has no interest whatsoever is the Kallupalam Lad's Jewellery Mart and the accused have no interest in her Kallupalam Auto Stores. At the portion separating the jewellery business from the auto stores at the southern end there is a room separated by shelves. There is a table is that room. It was to that room that the Officers in the Sales-tax Department first went. After going there when they demanded the first accused production of the account books of the kallupalam Lad's Jewellery Mart he produced certain account books. During their examination of the same they came across some other books and papers which were already in that room and which the lower courts have chosen to call as "secret books and papers". ON examining them the officers found that the entries in them were different from those in the account books which had been submitted to them by the accused. Those secret account books and papers were then taken into custody. It was thereafter that prosecution was launched.

(3.) AS it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had submitted false returns and that they had failed to keep true and complete accounts, the appeals are dismissed and the rules issued in the revision cases are discharged. . .