Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 1962 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1962 (9) TMI 35 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 477, Indian Penal Code (IPC)
2. Legality of the actions of Sales Tax Officers
3. Conviction under Section 332, IPC
4. Defective charges and prejudice to the accused

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 477, IPC
The defense contended that the conviction under Section 477, IPC, for secreting "valuable security" could not be sustained because the account books in question could not be considered "valuable security" as defined in Section 30, IPC. The court noted that the books were not recovered, and no witness could recall the entries. The prosecution argued that account books generally found in business places were involved. However, the court concluded that ordinary account books do not create or extinguish any right or liability by themselves and thus do not qualify as "valuable security" under Section 30, IPC. The court also dismissed the argument that the books could be considered valuable security under the Sales Tax Act, as they only support the dealer's claim but do not create any legal right or liability.

2. Legality of the Actions of Sales Tax Officers
The defense argued that the officers' acts amounted to an illegal seizure under Section 17(3) of the Sales Tax Act, as they were not empowered to proceed under that clause. The prosecution contended that the officers acted under Section 17(2), which allows inspection of books. The court found no evidence that the books were taken against the wishes of the accused, noting that accused 1 did not protest when the officers took the books. Therefore, the court concluded that the officers' actions did not amount to illegal seizure.

3. Conviction under Section 332, IPC
- Accused 3: The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's case against accused 3. Early records did not clearly indicate his involvement, and there was no identification parade. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt and that the conviction under Section 332 without a direct charge was faulty.
- Accused 1: The specific charge against accused 1 was under Section 307 for attempting to murder P.W. 1, which was not proven. The court held that the failure to frame a charge under Section 332 caused prejudice to accused 1, as he was not given notice that he was being tried for personally assaulting Narasimhan. The court also found no evidence of a prearranged plan or common intention among the accused, as required for the application of Section 34, IPC.
- Accused 2: The court upheld the conviction under Section 332, IPC, as all three officers testified about his involvement. The court dismissed the defense's argument regarding the lack of injuries on P.W. 2, noting that two blows with bare hands need not leave discernible marks. The court found no significant discrepancies in the evidence against accused 2.

4. Defective Charges and Prejudice to the Accused
The court agreed with the defense that the defective charges caused prejudice to the accused. The charge against accused 1 was misleading, as it suggested he was only vicariously liable for being a member of an unlawful assembly, not for personally assaulting Narasimhan. The court noted that even the question put to accused 1 under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, did not clarify the charge. The court emphasized that the common intention required by Section 34, IPC, implies a prearranged plan, which was not proven in this case.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the conviction of all the appellants under Section 477, IPC. The conviction of accused 1 and 3 under Section 332, IPC, was also set aside. However, the conviction and sentence of accused 2 under Section 332, IPC, were confirmed. The appeal was partly allowed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates