LexHAZARL LAL versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I S.C.R. SUPRE!vlE COlTRT REPORTS 41!1 HAZARl LAL 'V. STATE OF BIHAR (jAFER IMAM, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANOAR and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Criminal force--Use of, to deter public 8ervant from dischaming duty-1'ax O.f/icer in8Jiecti11y account books-Snatc/ied by amwd-lf offencr- made out-Act consti- tuting offence under i.'iale8 'l'ax lf!:U' also-Prosecution undrt Penal Code, whether, colourable-Bilwr Sales Tax Act, 1114~ (Bihar XIX of lf/47), ss 17, 26 (1) (h)-lndian l'nrnl Coile, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), '"· 349, .150, 35-1. The Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes paid a surprise visit to the shop of the appellant where he found two sets of account books. He took them up and started looking into them. The appellant snatched away both the books. An attempt by the orderly peon of the Assistant Superintendent to recover the books was foiled by the appellant. The appellant was tried and convicted for an offence under s. 353 of the Penal Code for using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. Held, that the appellant was properly convicted under s. 353 Penal Code. The snatching of the books amounted to use of force; the snatching necessarily caused a jerk to the hands of the officer which caused motion to his hands wit bin the meaning ofs. 349 of the Penal Code. The Officer was entitled under the Bihar Si'les Tax Act, and the Rules to pay a surprise visit to the shop of the appellant without giving him any notice and the appellant was bound to show him his account books. The officer was lawfully in possession of the account books and the appellant had no justification to snatch them away. The officer was naturally annoyed at this and accordingly the act of the appellant amounted to use of criminal force. A seizure of the books under s. 17 of the Sales· Tax ,\ct would be valid only if the reasons for the seizure were recorded by the officer. But the present case was not one of seizure. Merely holding books found lying in a shop for perusing the"' does not amount to their seizure. Prahlad Ram '"Staff, (Patna Hi"h Court, unreported). distiniruished. 1962 1961 Haz•ri Lol v. Slall of Bihar Mud/,.lkar, J. 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963JSUPP. The act of the appellant amounted to an ofl'ence under s. 26 (I) (h) of the Sales Tax Act also and for his prosecution under that section sanction of the Commissioner would have been necessary. His act was an offence both under that section · and under s. 353 of the Code. He could be prosecuted for either or both these offences. The offence under s. 353 of the Penal Code was a graver offence than the one under s. 26 (I) (h) and in choosing to pro,ecute the appellant under s. 353 the prosecution could not be charged with acting colourably to obviate the necessity of obtaining the sanction. Sonelal Seth v. State, (Patna High Court, unreported), disapproved, CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 35 and 36 ofl961. Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated November 1 and September 1960 of the Patna High Court in Cr. Revisions Nos. 812 of 1960 and 76 of 1959 respectively. Sarjoo Pra,sad and K. K. Sinha, for the appel· !ants. S. P. Varma, for the respondents. 1962. September 27. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, .J.--This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Patna upholding the appellant's conviction under s. 353, Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against him. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows: On the evening of October 29, 1957, Mr. Bhupendra Narain Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Patna Sadar circle, paid a surprise visit to the shop of Hazari Lall & Co., in Bara.h town in order to inspect the books of accounts I s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 421 maintained by the shop. At that time the appellant Hazari Lall was in the shop. Mr. Singh found that two sets cf account books were kept in the shop. He took them up and started looking into them. The appellant snatched away both the books from him, passed them on to one of his servants who made them over to another servant who was on the upper floor. Mr. Singh directed his orderly peon to recover the books. The peon was, however, prevented by the appellant from going to the place where the account books had been taken and in the scuffle which ensued between the two, the orde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.