RATANCHAND RADHAKISONDAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 1491 is an appeal by one Ratachand Radhakisondas against his convictions under S. 471 read with S. 467 and under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against thhe accused was that on 12-11-1956 at Bombay he fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine a certain document purporting to be a valuable security, viz., K form of Bombay Sales Tax Officer, which he know or had reason to believe at the time be used it to be a forged document and thereby comitted an offence punishable under S. 471 read with S. 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The second charge against him was that at the saem time and place and in the course of the sametransaction, he cheated on Ratialal Wadilala, partner of Shantilala and Company, by dishonesty inducing him to deliver poplin cloth valued at Rs. 844-1-0 to the accused without payment of general sales tax and which cloth was the property of the said Ratilala Wadilala and thus committed an offence punishable under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the appellant were that 12-11-1956 he approached Ratialal Wadialal a partner in the firm of Shantilal and Co., with a representation that he represented a firm named Manmal Kundamal either as a proprietor or as a representative. stating that he was authorized to make purchases of goods on behalf of Manmal Kundamal free of general sales tax, as he was a licensed dealer, held a registration certificate and was purchasing the goods in question for the purpose of resale to other persons. Under cl(1) of the proviso to section 9 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, no general sales tax is to be levied on the sales of goods to a dealer who holds a licence and furnishes to the selling dealer a certificate in K form. On the representation made by the appellant goods worth Rs. 884-1-0 were sold to him wiithout levy of the general sales tax. According to the prosecution, the accused had knowledge that the "K" Form which he was furnishing was aforged K form that constituted a valuable security, inasmuch as he would be able to purchase the goods that he was purchasing without payment of general sales tax. The representation made by the accused to Shantilal and Co., was according to the prosecution, a false and fraudulent representation on the basis of which they 0parted with goods worth 884-1-0 on 12-11-1959. It appears that there was another firm in the Mulji Jetha Market called B. Jayantilal and Co., and certain investigations were being made by the Sales Tax Officer, in the course of which the Officer came across a similar K form in the name of Manmal Kundamal and in the course of a cross check the sales Tax authorities realised that the firm of Manmal Kundamal had altogether a different business and did not deal in cloth. That was why further inquirires came to be made withb. Jayantilal and on 29-11-1956. Kshatriya, Sales Tax Inspector, located the present appellant sitting at some place. A complaint was filed on 4-12-1956 and a raid was organized in the course of which according to the prosecution. the appellant was found in possession of a bag containing several forms of a similar type which indicated that the appellant was intending to use them and also that he was responsible for furnishing this form given to Shantilala and co. on 12-11-1956 On these allegations, the accused was charged as already stated above.

(2.) The defence of the appellant was that he had no dealings of any kind with Ratialal Wadilal of Shantilal and Co. According to him, he was petty commission agent or Dalal working in the Mulji Jetha Market and it was his case that he was making purchases of small quantities of cloth at the instance of customers but that he was not a licenced dealer. As he used to move about in the Mulji Jetha Market, he was taking tea on 4th December when the raid was made, and the place where he was sitting was really a tea-shop According to him, Jayathnilal Punamchand Parekh of the firm him, of B. Jayanthilal and Co. happened to come there for tea, took his seat beside the accused, kept is bag there and told him that he was going to answer a call of nature and left the spot. Within 5 too 7 minutes, the raiding party came and foisted Jayani lal's bag on him. He denied that he had any connection with the transation on which the prosecution relied or with the bag which he stated was foisted upon him at the instance of Jayanthilal.

(3.) The accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the court of Session for Greater Bombay with the aid of a jury which returned a unanimouns verdict of guilty on both the charges levelled against the accused. Accepting that verdict, the learned Judge convicted the appallant under S. 471 read with S. 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprsonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default rigorous impriosnment for three months. He also convicted the appellant under S. 420 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to rigourous imprisonment for 18 months on that charge. He directed that the sentences on these charges should run concurrently. That is why the accused has filed the present appeal.