SITARAM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 21 · Decided: 05-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SITARAM 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
21 
(J. L. KAPUR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and RAGHUBAR 
DAYAL, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial--Offence of 
filing 
false 
return 
of 
Sales tax-Limitation-If trial barred after thi-ee months-0. P. 
and Berar Sale. Tax Act, 1947 (C. P. XX! of 1947), s. 26. 
The appella~ts submitted their 
returns of sales tax . 
More than three months afterwards a complaint was filed 
against them under s. 24( I) (b) and (g) of the C. P. and Berar 
Sales Tax Act alleging that the returns filed were false anc! 
that the accounts produced were incorrect. They contended 
that the prosecution was· barred by s. 26(2) of the Act which 
provided that no prosecution shall be instituted against any 
·person in respect of anything done or intended to be done . 
under the Act unless it was instituted within three months 
from the date of the act complained of. 
Held, that the prosecution was barred by s. 26(2) of the 
Act. The Vl'Ords "any person" ins. 26(2) were words of wide 
import and included the appellants. There was no reason to 
restrict them to Government servants. 
Both the making of 
the return and the production of the accounts were acts done 
under the Act; the return being filed under s. 10 and the 
accounts being produced under s. 15 of the Act. Section 26(2) 
was thus clearly applicable to the case. 
. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 146 and 147 of 60. 
Appeals by special leave fr<lm the. judgment 
and order dated February 11, 1960, of the Madhya. 
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 270 
to 274 of 1959. 
G. 0. Mathur, for the appellants. 
l.N. Shroff, for the respondents. 
1962. February 5. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
KAPUR, J. -There are two appeals directed 
against the order of the High Court of Madhya 
' 
. .. 
-· 
' 
. 
- . 1962 
February Ii. 
EapurJ~ 
1962 
Bt.taram 
•• 
S14te of 
M aJli;·a Pradtsh 
K•purJ. 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
Pradesh rejecting a Reference made by the Ses-
sions Judge against the prosecution of th,-, appel-
lants for contravening the provisions of the C. P . 
and Berar Sales Tax Act (C. P. XXI of 1947), 
hereinafter called the 'Act'. 
A firm of which five brothers including the 
two appellants were partners Huhrnitted their sales 
tax returns for the quarters beginning June l, 194i, 
to the quarters ending December 31, 1951. A 
complaint was fil1Jd against the p1irtners on July 
19, I 95i, on the ground that the returns filed by 
them were fals!' and the accounts produced wero 
·incorrect and therefore an offence under s. 24(1)(h) 
and (g) of the Act was committed. 
On December 12, 
I 9:i8, an obieetion was 
taken by the accused perFons that under s. 26(2) 
of the Act, the prosecution could not he instituted 
as it was barred by time, having been instituted 
more than three months nfter the commission of 
the offence. 
The lParncd JTagiRt.rate dirl not go 
into the objection on the ground that it was not 
the proper forum for raising the objection. 
Four 
revisions were taken to the 8cssions .Judge who on 
llfay 4, l 95!l, made a r,,forrncc to the High Court 
for qmishing tht' proceedings. 13ut tho High Court 
rejected the refcrenee on the grounrl that a person 
making a false ,return neither act8 nor purports to 
act under the Act ancl therefore s. 26(2) is not 
applicable to him. H is againHt that order that these 
appeals were brought by Special Leave. 
In order to decide this question, it is neces-
sary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Aot. 
Under s. 10 of the Act every dealer is required 
to furnish a return when called upon to do so and 
every registered dealer 
i8 rec1uired 
to furnish 
returns by such datc>s as may b1' prescribed. Thl' ap-
pellants arc registe1·<'cl dealern unrl they hn.ve made 
returns ~nder that section. Section I 5 de:lls with 
-, . 
... 
• 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REP01tTS 
23 
production and inspection of' accounts and s. 24 
enumerates the offences under the Act. 
The alle-
ged offence of the appellants falls under s. 34(1) 
(b) and (g). i. e. failing without sufficient cause 
to submit any return· or' furnishing false returns 
and knowingly producing incorrect accounts, regis-
ters or documents or knowingly furnishing incor-
rect information. Section 26 relates to the 'pro-
tection of persons acting in good faith and limita-
tion for suits and prosecutions. The section when 
• quoted is as follows : 
s. 26 (1) "No suit, prosecution or 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.