SHYAMLAL JAGNANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this application under Articles 20, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Sections 439 and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their prayer is that a prosecution which is pending against them be quashed.

(2.) THIS application has arisen in the following circumstances : Sri Vishnu Swaroop is an Inspector of Commercial Taxes at Monghyr. The petitioners and Anant Ram, father of petitioner Shyam Lal Jagnani, have their shops for sale of cloth and grains and other articles in Barhee Bazar within the district of Monghyr. On the 22nd April, 1952, Vishnu Swaroop filed a written report at Barhee police station. In this report, he stated that, while inspecting the papers of the petitioners in connection with an agricultural income-tax case, he found a rokar relating to transactions in food-grains by the Bihar Food Trading Co. with the petitioners as its proprietors and started taking extracts from that rokar and signing its pages. The petitioners showed a threatening attitude to Vishnu Swaroop, snatched away the rokar from him and became ready to assault him. After making an investigation into these allegations, the Sub-Inspector of Barhee police station submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and they were, thereupon, put upon their trial. As the case was transferred to Mr. J. Singh, a Magistrate with second class powers, he tried the case. The petitioners were charged under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code for having "used criminal force by threatening to assault Vishnu Swaroop, Inspector of Commercial Taxes, a public servant with the object of not allowing him to look into your account books and thus preventing him from discharging his duty as such public servant." By his order dated the 20th December, 1952, Mr. J. Singh acquitted the petitioners of the charge framed against them.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid provisions, it was necessary for Vishnu Swaroop to secure the sanction of the Commissioner before filing a complaint against the petitioners for offences under clauses (a) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26. He secured the sanction from the Commissioner and then filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Monghyr. In this complaint, he alleged that petitioner Shyam Lal Jagnani was a registered dealer for his firm at Barhee styled as the Bihar Trading Co. and petitioner Ramballav Jagnani was a registered dealer at Khagaria in respect of a business which he carried on as a partner under the name and style of Mahabir Oil Mills but both the petitioners had an additional place of business styled as Messrs. Ramballav Shyamlal and they were liable to punishment under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 because they had not got themselves registered as dealers in respect of this business in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act.