V M DAKSHINAMURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these applications are filed under section 482, criminal Procedure Code, to quash the proceedings in S. T. C. Nos. 557 to 581 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kancheepuram.

(2.) THE Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kancheepuram (North), launched criminal prosecution by filing 25 complaints against the petitioners (accused 1 to 5) and another by name Gopal (accused No. 6) for violation of the provisions of rules 26 and 53 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments tax Rules, for non-furnishing of the returns within the respective period. THE first petitioner is the proprietor of the theatre Raja Talkies, Wallajabad, chengalpattu district. Petitioners 2 to 5 are the sons of the first petitioner. THE sixth petitioner is a stranger. All the petitioners obtained a licence for the running of the cinema theatre by exhibiting films and the licence so taken by them expired on 25th June, 1983. THEreafter also the theatre was exhibiting films even without a licence. According to the petitioners, one Kumaresan illegally entered into the theatre breaking open the locks and started exhibiting films without the connivance or the consent of the petitioners. On this aspect, the petitioners would say that they in fact had given a complaint to the Wallajabad Police Station and the police had not taken any action at all. THEy also filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 7763 of 1984 on the file of this Court to forbear the commercial tax authorities from taking any action against them including the collection of tax. It is represented that no stay had been given in the writ proceedings. It appears that a direction had been given to the Wallajabad Police to investigate the complaint given by the petitioners and submit a report before 15th December, 1984. But no report had been filed as directed. All the complaints in all the S. T. Cs. excepting S. T. C. Nos. 580 and 581 of 1984 had been filed into the court after a delay of 6 months and below. THE Magistrate not taking cognizance of the complaints in fact returned them stating that they had been filed after delay. All the abovesaid complaints had been represented before the court by the officer of the department by making an endorsement as follows : "the delay is due to pressure of work in final assessment and collection work. THE charge sheets filed were misplaced by the concerned clerk and hence the delay in filing the same before the Honourable court. I request that as the delay was due to administrative reasons the same may be condoned and the charge sheets may be taken on file of this Honourable court and disposed of according to law. " * THE Magistrate on his part simply took cognizance of all these cases by making an endorsement as follows : "delay condoned under section 473, Criminal procedure Code and C. S. taken on file. " * On receipt of summons, the petitioners have come forward with the present petitions seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.