M P KANNAN QUILANDY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners in those revision petitions are K. P. Kannan a grocerv dealer in Quilandy and his son M P. Balan They were convicted in two cases C C. 355 of 1962 and C. C 3 of 1962 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate. Quilandy. The two cases arose out of the same incident.

(2.) THE facts so far as they are necessary tor the purposes of this case may be stated thus: P. W 1 the Intelligence Officer of the Agricultural Income-tax and sales Tax, Kozln kode accompanied by two of his Inspectors went to inspect the first accused's shop on the evening of 5-10-1961. They entered the shop and introduced themselves as Sales Tax Officers visiting the shop for the purpose of inspecting the account hooks. The first accused produced some account books which were inspected by P W 1. In the course of the inspection P. W. 1 noticed some note-books and slips in an open rack and asked him to hand them over for inspection. The first accused placed them on the table. P. W. 1 and one of the inspectors P. W. 2 examined the note books and slips (purchase vouchers and indents about fifty in number) and was satisfied that they related to the first accused's business and that some of the transactions referred to therein were not entered in the account books original ly produced by the first accused. P. W 1 wanted to seize them for further scrutiny and verification. So he recorded in writing the reasons for the seizure (Ext. P-7 ). He also prepared the receipt Ext. P8 (in original) with Ext. P-3 (carbon copy) and asked the first accused to sign it. The fact of seizure was also endorsed by him in the first accused's day book Ext. P-2. By this time the second accused came to the shop and asked the first accused not to sign the receipt. Thereupon P W 1 handed over the note books to P W 3 and asked him to take the books to the motor van in which they had come P W 3 packed them and was about to take them In the was when the second accused went up to P W 3 and caught him by his shirt. The first accused then snatched the packet from P W 3 and passed it on to the second accused who handed it over to somebody in the crowd who escaped with it. P W. 1 proceeded imme diately to the police station and reported the matter. The accused were charged separately for the offences under the Penal Code and the Sales Tax Act. In C. C. 355 of 1902 the two accused were convicted under Section 858, I. P. C. for using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each. In C C. 3 of 1902 they were convicted under Section 19 (c) of the general Sales Tax Act, 1125 for having obstructed the inspection of account hooks by the officers and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each. On appeal to the sessions Court the conviction and sentence in both the cases were confirmed.

(3.) IN both the cases P. Ws. 1 to 3 gave evidence in support of the incident and proved the relevant records. Both the accused practically admitted the fact that P. W. 1 had 'taken into custody some of the records, though they would deny the use of criminal force on the officer or of having forcibly removed the books from his custody. The accused's case is that while the officers were inspecting the books they were asked not to pull out from the almyrah certain books and slips containing Ayurvedic Prescriptions as they were to be preserved. They took offence at this and wrote up something and asked the first accused to sign. He refused to do so as it was in English and was neither read out nor explained to him two witnesses were examined by them to support their version of the incident. The learned Magistrate as well as the appellate Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and found that the books and records taken for further scrutiny were forcibly removed by the accused from the custody of the officers,