1953 (11) TMI 15 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Prosecution quashing application under various constitutional provisions and criminal procedure codes; Necessity of Commissioner's sanction for prosecution under Bihar Sales Tax Act; Trial legality under Article 20(2) of the Constitution; Application of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act; Principle of autre fois acquit under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Detailed Analysis:

The petitioners sought to quash a pending prosecution against them, challenging the legality of the trial under various constitutional provisions and criminal procedure codes. The case stemmed from allegations by an Inspector of Commercial Taxes regarding the petitioners' conduct during an inspection related to the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The Inspector secured the Commissioner's sanction and initiated a complaint against the petitioners for offenses under the Act. The trial was transferred to a Magistrate, leading to the petitioners' application to quash the proceedings, citing legal grounds.

The legality of the trial under Article 20(2) of the Constitution was questioned, focusing on the definition of "offense" and the prohibition against multiple prosecutions for the same offense. The court analyzed the definition under the General Clauses Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, concluding that the current trial did not violate Article 20(2) as the offenses differed from the previous trial under the Indian Penal Code.

The application of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act was crucial in determining the petitioners' liability for prosecution under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The court examined the provision regarding multiple enactments and reiterated that the offenses in question were distinct from those previously tried, thus not attracting double punishment. The court emphasized the differences in elements between the offenses, reinforcing the inapplicability of Section 26 to the present case.

The principle of autre fois acquit under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked to argue against the pending trial. The petitioners contended that the trial was barred due to the earlier acquittal by a Magistrate with limited powers. However, the court clarified that the Magistrate's competence to try the offenses under the Bihar Sales Tax Act was distinct, allowing for subsequent prosecution despite the prior trial's outcome. Citing relevant case law, the court distinguished previous judgments to support its conclusion that the pending trial was not barred under Section 403.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, affirming the legality of the pending trial against the petitioners and rejecting all arguments challenging the prosecution's validity under the applicable legal provisions.

Judges:
- SAHAI, J.
- JAMUAR, J.