BHUPALEM VENKATA SUBBAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners have filed this petition praying for revision of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, in Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1959 dated 20th July, 1959. They were the three accused in C.C. No. 328 of 1957 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cuddapah. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced them as follows :-

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is as follows :- The Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddapah (P.W. 5) deputed the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions) (P.W. 1) to inspect Shree Sai Baba Oil Mills. Accordingly, P.W. 1 went to that mill accompanied by P.W. 2, the Inspector of Commercial Taxes Sadiq Ali (P.W. 3) at about 2-30 p.m. When they arrived at the mills, they found A-1 sitting upon the front pial of the main building scrutinising some books. A-1 and A-2 are partners of the mill and are residing in the mill premises. A-3 is a clerk of the mill, i.e., Shree Sai Baba Oil Mills. On seeing the approach of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, A-1 hastily bundled up all the books in his upper cloth and proceeded towards his house. P.W. 1 immediately rushed up to A-1 and seized the books from A-1. Those books consisted of four exercise note-books, two half foolscap bound books and three bundles of foolscap paper folded along their length. P.W. 1 intended to use them in his inspection of the accounts of the oil mill for comparing them with the regular accounts of the mill. A-1 then raised an alarm. Then, A-2 and A-3, who were also sitting on the platform came to A-1. About ten workers also rushed there from the mills on hearing the alarm and joined A-1. A-1 pushed P.W. 1 from behind. A-2 caught hold to P.W. 1. Then A-1 snatched the books from the hands of P.W. 1 and passed them on to one of the workers. The latter ran away from the spot through the back door of the mill premises. In the course of this occurrence, A-3 along with two labourers, pushed aside P.W. 2 and caught hold of P.W. 1 and did not allow him to move. P.W. 1 sent word through P.W. 3 to P.W. 5. The latter came to the spot along with another Inspector called Bhujanga Rao. P.W. 1 gave a complaint to the Police, Exhibit P-1, through the Commercial Tax Officer, P.W. 5. The Police investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet.

(3.) THE prosecution evidence clearly proved beyond doubt or dispute that the occurrence took place. Both the Courts below, including the trial Magistrate who saw the witnesses deposing before him, chose to believe the prosecution witnesses in preference to the defence witnesses regarding the facts. It has not been seriously contended before me that the version of the prosecution as believed by the two lower Courts is wrong or that the version of the accused as sought to be proved by the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3 is true. I see no reason to doubt the correctness of the concurrent finding of the two lower Courts regarding facts that prove the occurrence. I believe that the occurrence took place, as alleged by the prosecution. The main arguments urged before me are on the basis that the concurrent findings on facts by the two lower Courts were true. It is contended that the provisions of section 28(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereafter referred to, for convenience, as the "Act") and the concerned rules were not observed in conducting the alleged search. Section 28(3) of the Act runs :-