STATE Vs. KAIKHUSHROO MERWAN IRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THESE three appeals Nos. 1216, 1217 and 1218 have been heard together, as they are against the same respondents and arose out of proceedings held before the Sales Tax Officer, witness Kulkarni. In the case giving rise to appeal No. 1216, the charge against the accused was that they had knowingly submitted false returns for the quarters ending 31st March, 1952, 30th June, 1952, and 31st October, 1952. The evidence to prove these charges was of two kinds. There was a statement made by respondent No. 1 before witness Kulkarni, who was then the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement, at Bombay. In this statement respondent No. 1 has admitted that the returns submitted by the respondents were incorrect. This statement was recorded on the 8th February, 1955. Kulkarni has stated in his evidence that on 30th September, 1954, the accused's premises were visited and that certain account books had then been seized. He has also stated in the cross-examination that he inspected these account books on 8th February, 1955, and certain dates thereafter in 1955 and till the investigation was complete. They would indicate that on 8th February he was investigating some offence which the accused were suspected to have committed. Under sub-section (1) of section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Collector may authorise any person to assist him in investigating an offence punishable under the Act. Kulkarni had been so authorised by the Collector. Sub-section (2) of section 38 provides that every person so authorised shall, in the conduct of such investigation, exercise the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure upon the officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of a cognizable offence. As therefore Kulkarni was authorised to exercise the powers conferred upon an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of a cognizable offence, he would be a Police Officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. (See Nanoo Sheikh Ahmed v. Emperor ((1926) 28 Bom. L.R. 1196; 51 Bom. 78)). The statement made by respondent No. 1 to Kulkarni, in which he has virtually admitted the offence, therefore, amounts to confession and was rightly not admitted in evidence by the leaned Magistrate.

(3.) IN the case to which Appeal No. 1217 relates the charge against the respondents was that they had not maintained true accounts of the goods purchased by them. There is, however, no evidence to show that the respondents had not entered in the account books any particular goods purchased by them or that the values of some goods purchased by them as entered in the account books were incorrect. The learned Magistrate was therefore right in acquitting the respondents. This appeal is therefore dismissed.