1960 (8) TMI 71 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure under Section 28(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
2. Right of private defense under Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Validity of the prosecution's evidence and the defense's alibi.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure under Section 28(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act:
The main contention was whether the seizure of the books by P.W. 1 was lawful under Section 28(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. According to Section 28(3), an officer may seize accounts, registers, or other documents if he has reason to suspect an attempt to evade tax, provided that reasons are recorded in writing. The prosecution argued that the books seized were related to the mill's business as described under Section 28(3). However, the defense contended that the books did not fall under this category and were private papers. The judgment noted that P.W. 1 did not inspect the contents of the books and could not confirm their relevance to the mill's business. This lack of direct evidence and the possibility of the books being private led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the books were subject to lawful seizure under Section 28(3).

2. Right of Private Defense under Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code:
The prosecution relied on Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code, which states there is no right of private defense against an act by a public servant acting in good faith under the color of his office, even if the act is not strictly justifiable by law. The judgment referenced the case of Thathineni Subba Rao, where it was held that if a public servant's action exceeded their legal powers, the individuals could exercise their right of private defense. In this case, since the seizure was not proved to be lawful, the accused had the right to retrieve the books. The judgment concluded that the accused acted within their right of private defense and did not use excessive force, thereby not committing any offense.

3. Validity of the Prosecution's Evidence and the Defense's Alibi:
The trial court and the Sessions Judge believed the prosecution's evidence over the defense's alibi. The defense witnesses (D.Ws. 1 to 3) were disbelieved, and the prosecution's version of the events was accepted. The judgment noted that both lower courts' concurrent findings on facts were not seriously contested. However, the key issue was whether the prosecution proved that the seized books were subject to lawful seizure under Section 28(3). The judgment emphasized that the prosecution bore the burden of proof to show the books were related to the mill's business, which they failed to do. Consequently, the accused's actions to retrieve the books were justified.

Conclusion:
The revision petition was allowed, and the convictions and sentences against the petitioners were set aside. The court acquitted the accused of all charges, ordered the refund of fines paid, and canceled their bail bonds. The judgment concluded that the seizure was not authorized by law, and the accused acted within their right of private defense.