PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. T PICHAIMUDALLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are preferred by the Public Prosecutor against the judgment of the uistnci Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, against the acquittal of tna accused in C. C. Nos. 176 and 177 of 1961. The saiea lax Officer, on examining the accounts relating to a rice mill licensee, Ibramsa Rowther, found that the accused Pitchai Mudaliar had not brought into his account tne sales turnover of rice to an extent of Rs. 21,217 for me year 1955-56. The inspection is said to ba or? 27-21959. After investigation', a complaint under S. 15 (2) of tna Madras General Sales-tax Act, 1959 was filed on 20-10 1959. After the inspection but before the laying ot tne complaint, the Madras General Sales-tax Act 1959 came Into force, and the General Sales-tax Act 1939 was repealed.

(2.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for we accused in the lower court that as the prosecution was laid under S. 15 (2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, ana as the new Act had come into force on 1-41959, no prose-'cuttora can be launched under the old Act that such prosecution is not maintainable in law. This contention was accepted by the trial court. It held that the prosecution Is not sustainable, and", therefore, acquitted the accused.

(3.) UNFORTUNATELY, the decision of the Supreme Court In Kapur Chand Pokhraj v. State of Bombay, 1959 SCR 250 : (AIR 1958 SC 993) was not brought to the notice of the District Magistrate. Dealing with Section 48 (2) of the Bombay Sales-tax Act, which provides Wat notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act, the reoeal snail I not affect or be deemed to affect any right, title, obligation lor liability, already acquired, accrued or incurred, Subba Rao Jj. neld that the words "liability incurred" are very general and comprehensive and ordinarily take in both civil ano criminal liability. there was no reason why the all comprehensive word should not carry its full import but be restricted to civil liability alone? The learned Judge turtnet observed that the context does not compel any such limitation. Under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 s. on provides that the repeal of the Sales Tax Act, 1939 snaii not affect the previous operation of the said Act or any right, title or obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred. The wording of the saving section, S. 61 01 the Madras General Sales-tax Act, 1959 is the same as found In Sec. 48-A of the Bombay General Sales-tax Act, 1953, and therefore, the decision of the Supreme court hoias gooa In this case also. The order of acquittal, tneretore, is erroneous and is hereby set aside. The case will ne retried by thei District Magistrate of Ramanathapuram.