9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (4) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to do so. He carried on business in contravention of the provisions of section 8(1) of the Sales Tax Act during the period from 11th April, 1949, to 19th September, 1950, and thus rendered himself liable to prosecution. After obtaining the necessary sanction from the Sales Tax Commissioner on 27th March, 1959, the department filed a complaint in the court of First Class Magistrate. 3.. The defence was that the prosecution should have been commenced within three months from the date of commission of the offence under section 26(2) of the Sales Tax Act and as the complaint was beyond that period, the prosecution was barred. 4.. This contention has been accepted by the learned Magistrate and the accused-respondent has accordingly been acq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpression "anything done under the Act". On the other hand, Shri A.D. Deoras for the respondent contends that the words "any person" are wide enough to cover a dealer and the omission to register is also an "act done under the Act". 8.. At first sight, it appears that the words "any person" are wide enough to cover a dealer also. However, as Naik, J., observed in The State of M.P. v. Bipin Chandra two others Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1958, decided on 14th October, 1959., such a wide interpretation renders section 24 meaningless. Prosecution for most of the items included in that section is almost impossible within the short period allowed. For instance, a prosecution under item (g) which makes it an offence for the dealer to produce i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words "anything done" are wide enough to include "anything omitted to be done". Maxwell on page 73 of his book "The Interpretation of Statutes" (Tenth Edition) observes: "The statutes which require notice of action for anything 'done' under them, are construed as including an omission of an act which ought to be done as well as the commission of a wrongful one." Under section 2(2) of the General Clauses Act words which refer to "acts done" also refer to "illegal omissions". I agree with Shri Deoras that the words "anything done" in section 26(2) are wide enough to cover "omissions". 11.. However, the whole expression "anything done under the Act" requires closer examination. The word "under" here is synonymous with "in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de offences and for which a penalty is prescribed". And yet in another case, The State of M. P. v. Sitaram s/o RamsakheyCriminal Revision No. 273 of 1959, decided on 11th February, 1960., Sharma, J., placed the same interpretation on the expression saying: "It is not possible to hold that an act which is made punishable by section 34 of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act can yet be deemed for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 26 of the Act to be an act done or intended to be done under the provisions of the said Act. The fact that the act has been declared to be punishable under the law is itself sufficient, in my opinion, for holding that it cannot be an act done or intended to be done under that law. The test whether an act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
