RAMAN NAMBUDIRI Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER MANJERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case has been filed on behalf of the accused in C.C. No. 193/1956 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court at Malappuram. One Devaky Amma was the owner of a provision shop at Manjeri. The accused was in charge of the affairs of this shop as the agent of the owner of the shop. At 4 P.M. on 16th April, 1956, P.W. 1 who was at that time Deputy Commercial Tax Officer at Manjeri, entered this shop for inspection of the accounts to find out whether there has been any suppression of sales and purchases in that shop with a view to evade payment of sales tax. The accused was then sitting at the counter and was looking after the business of the shop. On seeing P.W. 1 entering the shop, the accused suddenly removed a pocket notebook that was kept on the table in the shop and placed it in his own pocket. P.W. 1 made repeated demands for surrender of that book for his inspection on the basis that it was one of the books kept in the shop in the ordinary course of the business transacted therein. The accused stoutly refused to surrender the book on the pretext that it contained his private accounts. The notice issued by P.W. 1 in his official capacity as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, calling upon the accused to produce the book in question was also disobeyed by the accused. On these allegations, P.W. 1 prosecuted the accused for the offence under section 15(c) read with section 14(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (Act IX of 1939, Madras) and also under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against him and maintained that his conduct in refusing to surrender the book in question for the inspection of P.W. 1 did not amount to the offence punishable under law. The learned Magistrate repelled this plea and found that the prosecution evidence has made out the offence charged against the accused. Accordingly, the accused was convicted of the offences under the above sections and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The revision case is directed against this conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE points raised on behalf of the accused are : (1) that P.W. 1 had no right to demand or insist upon the production of any account book or document even if it related to the business conducted by the accused; much less if it related to his private business; and (2) that the facts proved at best merely showed that accounts were not made available to P.W. 1, but that it will not amount to obstruction as contemplated by section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not see any force or substance in these contentions.

(3.) IN the result this revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.