LAWS(MAD)-1952-9-13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. K C AYYAPPAN PILLAI

Decided On September 09, 1952
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Appellant
V/S
K.C.AYYAPPAN PILLAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. R. Cases Nos. 88 to 97, 99 to 105 and 108 of 1952.-These are 18 connected criminal revision cases filed by the State against the convictions and sentences of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fort Cochin, in C. C. No. 122 of 1951 etc.

(2.) THE following tabular statement gives the details of the sales Tax Cases from which these revisions are preferred :- Sl. No. Crl. R. C. No. C. C. No. Tax Rs. A. P. 1 88/52 122/51 579 5 10 2 89/52 107/51 501 6 0 3 90/52 104/51 931 13 4 4 91/52 98/51 144 0 0 5 92/52 96/51 367 4 0 6 93/52 92/51 1, 750 0 0 7 94/52 90/51 1, 612 12 2 8 95/52 84/51 2, 639 13 6 9 96/52 72/51 1, 507 14 5 679 14 8 827 15 9 10 97/52 68/51 896 7 9 11 99/52 162/51 346 2 4 12 100/52 157/51 1, 746 6 0 1, 219 14 6 526 7 6 13 101/52 156/51 1, 273 1 8 14 102/52 155/51 582 4 0 15 103/52 153/51 953 0 0 628 0 0 325 0 0 16 104/52 152/51 1, 232 0 8 17 105/52 151/51 764 7 4 18 108/52 127/51 5, 653 2 6 Year of assessment. Conviction and sentence. 1946 - 47 Rs. 200 fine 1945 - 46 Rs. 50 fine on admission " Rs. 300 fine " Rs. 30 fine on admission " Rs. 100 fine 1946 - 47 Rs. 150 fine " Rs. 400 fine " Rs. 300 fine 1947 - 48 Rs. 80 fine, balance of tax Rs. 827-15-9 directed to be paid. 1947 - 48 Rs. 100 fine 1945 - 46 Rs. 50 fine on admission 1947 - 48 Rs. 140 fine, balance of tax Rs. 526-7-6 to be paid. 1946 - 47 Rs. 130 fine 1945 - 46 Rs. 60 fine on admission 1947 - 48 Rs. 70 fine, balance of tax Rs. 325 to be paid. 1946 - 47 Rs. 120 fine on admission 1945 - 46 Rs. 80 fine on admission " Rs. 600 fine on admissionthere is no dispute in all these 18 cases about the correct calculation of the turnover adopted by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer or the assessment or the service of the demand notices or the non-payment of the taxes within the time fixed. THE learned Public Prosecutor has preferred these criminal Revision Cases on the ground that the learned Sub-Divisional magistrate in 14 of these cases has not provided in the order for the payment of the sales tax in respect of which the particular respondent was found guilty and convicted under Section 15 (b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and that in three cases he has made the respondent liable to pay the tax only for the second half of 1947-48 in C. C. No. 72 of 1951 and for the last three months of 1947-48 in C. C. No. 153 of 1951 and that this direction for payment of the tax for the last quarter only is not in conformity with law and that the lower court ought to have directed in the order the payment of the entire tax in respect of which default was committed and for which the respective respondent was found guilty and sentenced under Section 15 (b) of the Madras General Sales tax Act.