PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. NATAKALA JANAKIRAMA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondents. The two respondents are the partners of a firm of registered dealers doing business in cloth at Chittoor. The charge against them was that they committed a breach of clause (i) of rule 45(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, read with section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (VI of 1957) and were therefore punishable under rule 64 of the said Rules. The charge was based on the fact that on 26th August, 1957, when their shop was inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer (P.W. 1) and the Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer (P.W. 2), it was found that they had not entered in their day book (exhibit P-7) (1) items 12 and 24 to 36 of the cloth purchased under a bill (exhibit P-4) dated 5th August, 1957; (2) all the items purchased under a bill (exhibit P-5) dated 22nd August, 1957; and (3) all the items purchased under a third bill (exhibit P-6) dated 10th August, 1957. The defence was that they did not enter items 12 and 24 to 36 of exhibit P-4, because the weavers who supplied them did not turn up at the shop and the purchase money could not therefore be paid to them. In regard to exhibits P-5 and P-6, the defence was that the practice of the firm was to enter the goods in the accounts only after checking them with the invoices. The goods covered by exhibit P-5 were received only on 23rd August, 1957, and the accused's version was that the parcel was opened and inspected just before the visit of P.Ws-1 and 2 on 26th August, 1957. The parcel containing the goods covered by exhibit P-6 was received on 14th August, 1957, and remained unopened in the shop as the goods were not immediately needed.

(2.) IT will be convenient at this stage to read the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Rule 45(1) and rule 64 are in the following terms :

(3.) IT is conceded that no forms for the accounts to be maintained have been prescribed. Nor have the particulars to be mentioned in them been specified beyond what is contained in rule 45. The learned Public Prosecutor states that such accounts as are maintained by the dealers are checked by the Commercial Tax Officer to verify whether the rule has been complied with. It will be seen that for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of clause (i) of rule 45(1), (1) the account must show the value of the goods produced, manufactured, bought and sold by the dealer; (2) it must be true and correct; and (3) it must be kept and maintained in one of the authorised languages. Although rule 64 makes any breach of rule 45 punishable, as it has been framed under section 39(3), it must be taken to mean that the person must be guilty of a breach. The natural meaning of the word "guilty" imports culpability. In other words, the breach of the rule must be blameworthy. This is all that might be said to be required for incurring liability for punishment under the rule. Thus, for instance, if the value of the goods purchased could not be ascertained or if there is a bona fide mistake in making the entries or if the accounts could not be kept owing to some accident or misfortune (vide section 80 read with section 40, Indian Penal Code) the breach of rule 45(1) would not be punishable.