RADHAKRISHNA CHETTIAR Vs. STO SPECIAL CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am afraid that both the lower courts have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner under S.174 of the Penal Code.

(2.) P. W. 1, a Sales Tax Officer, inspected the shop of the petitioner and saw some of his accounts. The officer felt that the accounts were not properly and truly maintained; and therefore, he issued a notice, Ex. P2, calling upon the petitioner to appear in person on a particular day and to express his willingness or otherwise for compounding. The petitioner did not appear, but sent an explanation Some correspondence followed; and ultimately, the Sales Tax Officer issued Ex. P7 calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for an enquiry which he proposed to conduct to find out whether the accounts were true or not. The petitioner failed to appear; and for such failure to appear he was prosecuted under S.174 of the Penal Code.

(3.) Under S.46(c), the Sales Tax Officer could have prosecuted the petitioner for maintaining false accounts; and the petitioner would have met the prosecution I have looked into Exx. P2 to P7. The Sales Tax Officer has asked the petitioner even in Ex. P2 to appear personally and state unequivocally whether he was willing to compound: why a personal appearance at that stage Would it not have been sufficient if the petitioner sent his willingness to compound instead of appearing in person . What Exx. P2 to P7 have revealed is that the Sales Tax Officer was unnecessarily insisting on the petitioner's personal appearance. In my opinion, this was not a case in which the Sales Tax Officer should have insisted on the personal appearance of the petitioner. Responsible officers should not use the power vested in them by law out of its proper place; and if it is used out of place; it is even likely to be a misuse of the power. A prosecution like this should not have also been launched.