K M SUNDARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was convicted by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No.2, Cuddalore, under Section 14(1)(a) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act X of 1939) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and also convicted under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Public (Health) Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 with a default sentence of one month simple imprisonment under each offence. On appeal, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, modified the conviction of the petitioner into one under Section 14(1)(b) instead of Section 14(1)(a) and (c) of the Act X of 1939. But, however, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, retained the sentence of fine of Rs.1,000.00 imposed under the aforesaid section apart from the conviction and sentence under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Public (Health) Act. The aggrieved petitioner has filed this revision questioning the correctness and the legality the judgment of the appellate Court.

(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to this revision are as follows: P.W.1, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, as per the directions of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer caused the purchase of two tickets viz., S. Nos. 64151 and 64152 through his staff (P.Ws.2 and 4) on 24-9-1979 in the Cinema Theatre belonging to the petitioner, and again on 12-12-1979, three tickets bearing Serial Numbers 33088, 33089 and 76703 were purchased through P.Ws.3, 5 and 6. On verification of the records kept in the theatre premises, it was found that the tickets bearing the abovesaid serial numbers were again sold on the next day and they were not properly accounted for, and hence, the complaint was launched by the Deputy Commercial Tas Officer against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the offence. Both the Courts below found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence the aggrieved accused has filed this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised various contentions challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the complainant viz., the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was not competent to prosecute the revision petitioner on the date when the offence was committed. According to him, Act X of 1939 as amended upto 30th September, 1981 did not envisage prosecution by a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for offences committed under Section 14(1)(b) on the date when the offence was committed.