STATE Vs. R M SHAH AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THESE appeals are brought by the State from the order of acquittal made by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, for an offence under the Sales Tax Act and the Sales Tax Ordinance, one of 1946 and the other of 1952. It was alleged that the two accused persons, Rasiklal Manilal Shah and Navinchandra Ratilal were the partners of a firm named M/s. R. M. Shah & Co., doing business at 135 Masjid Bunder Road, Bombay 3. It was alleged that they were registered as dealers under the Registration Certificate No. BB-1634, dated 21st September, 1946, which is exhibited in the case as Ex. 1.

(3.) WE, however, agree with the learned Magistrate that neither of the accused was a registered dealer nor was the partnership. The learned Additional Assistant Government Pleader has invited or attention to the application form, Ex. D, for registration. The application was made by Ratilal Dahyabhai Shah, on of the partners of M/s. R. M. Shah & Co. He has given the details of the place of business and the commodities in which the firm deals. He has also given the names of two persons as partners, one being his name and the other being Rasiklal Manilal Shah. Mr. Gumaste, therefore, says that when the certificate was issued in the name of Ratilal Dahyabhai Shah/Messrs R. M. Shah & Co., it means that it was issued in the name of Ratilal Dahyabhai Shah and/or Messrs R. M. Shah & Co. On a reading of the certificate without anything more it is possible to read it in that manner. In this case, that is not the only thing. If we turn to the evidence of two officers who have been examined in the case, it appears that it is not possible to read the certificate as the learned Additional Assistant Government Pleader will have us to read. It appears that what is produced as Ex. 1 is a true copy of an office copy of the certificate that was issued and the original was undertaken to be produced on the next day, and we might say that it has not been produced. Even this difficulty might have been one that was not difficult to overcome. But the evidence of witness Ramchandra Vishnu Gharpure shows that Ex. 1 was issued in favour of Ratilal Dahyabhai Shah of Messrs R. M. Shah & Co. This witness has further stated that Ratilal Dahyabhai Shah a registered dealer under Ex. 1. He has stated that in Ex. 1 none of the accused is a registered dealer. The other witness is one Vishnu Vaman Gadkari, who is a Sales Tax Officer and apparently a responsible officer at that. He says in his cross-examination : "It is true that Ex. 1 is issued in favour of Ratilal Dahyabhai Shah of Messrs R. M. Shah & Co. None of the names of the accused appears in Ex. 1". Mr. Gumaste says that this is merely a mistake and that this evidence should be discarded. It is difficult to accept this argument. The evidence that has been given is by a responsible person who has been dealing with a large number of partnership cases and it appears that the knew the meaning of the bar which has been put in between Ratilal Dahyabhai Shah and Messrs R. M. Shah & Co. If, in any case, it was a mistake, they could have corrected the same during the time they were in the box or the prosecution could have examined higher officers, who could have thrown light on the certificate issued in like form. It is now too late to say that these are mistakes committed in the course of giving evidence and that these should be discarded. In view of this evidence, we cannot say that the learned Magistrate was in error when he observed that neither of the accused persons was a registered dealer in respect of the business known as Messrs R. M. Shah & Co. When once we accept the interpretation that the name of Messrs R. M. Shah & Co. was not there as its being a registered dealer but merely as part of description of Ratilal Dahyabhai Shah, in view of what I have stated above, the learned Magistrate was right in acquitting the accused in all the three appeals. The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.