STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. versus BACHHA LAL & ANR.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1169 · Decided: 21-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
-. 
ST A TE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
v. 
BACHHA LAL & ANR. 
JUNE 21, 2007 
[DR. ARlJIT PASA Y AT AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958; S.48/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 
0.23 R.1(3)(a)/Penal Code, 1860; S.353/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; 
S.197: 
11/egal gratification-Sales Tax Officer allegedly harassing respondents-
businessman in order to extract illegal gratification-Filing of suit against 
the officer without obtaining permission from the State Government in terms 
A 
B 
c 
of S.48of1958 Act-Maintainability of the suit-Held: The acts done by the 
Officer were in discharge of duties entrusted to him under the Act-Hence, D 
Trial Court was justified in holding that in the absence of previous sanction 
of the State Government to prosecute the Officer, the suit was not 
maintainable-The High Court has not considered the provisions of law in 
the proper perspective. 
Plaintiffs/respondents are brothers carrying on a business. Appellant E 
No.2 at the relevant time was Sales Tax Officer in the employment of appellant 
No. I, State of Madhya Pradesh. Respondents alleged that appellant No.2 in 
order to extract illegal gratification from them conducted illegal search and 
seizure under the provisions of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and also 
raised heavy demands of tax, got their Sales Tax registration certificate F 
revoked and also lodged a report under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, 
1860 with the police, resulting in prosecution of respondent No.2. However, 
he was acquitted thereafter. The respondents claimed damages on account of 
malicious prosecution. They averred that the report lodged by appellant No.2 
was not true; and that the suit was barred in view of provisions of Section 48 
of the 'Act'. 
G 
Trial Court held that the suit was not maintainable since permission of 
the State Government is required under Section 48 Of the Act. Accordingly 
the trial court directed that suit be permitted to be withdrawn under Order 
1169 
H 
1170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 7 S.C.R. 
A 23 Rule 1(3)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a liberty that they 
may institute fresh suit after obtaining necessary permission from the State 
Government in terms of S.48 of Act. Respondents challenged the order of 
the trial court on the ground that the cause of action as has been shown in 
the plaint was based on malicious prosecution on the basis of the report of 
B the appellant No.2 under Section 353 IPC and, therefore, the question of 
seeking permission under Section 48 of the Act does not arise. The petition 
was allowed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal. 
Respondent submitted that in a case relating to malicious prosecution 
the analogy of Section 197 Cr.P.C. had to be applied and the Act has nothing 
C to do with the jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The language of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is somewhat different. 
The language used in Section 48 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act relates to 
D acts done or intended to be done under the Act. Further sub-section l(a) of 
Section 48 provides that no officer or servant of the State Government would 
be liable in respect of any such Act referring to acts referred to in sub-
section (1) for which act was done in good faith in the course of execution of 
duty imposed on him or discharge of function entrusted to him by or under 
the Act, and the power relates both to Civil and Criminal proceedings. 
E 
(Para 121 (1173-B, CJ 
1.2. The acts done by appellant No.2 were in discharge of duties entrusted 
to him under the Act. That being so the trial court was justified in holding 
that Section 48 of the Act is clearly applicable. The High Court has not 
considered the relevant provisions of law in the proper perspective. 
F 
(Para 12) (1173-E, F) 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2904 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2002 of the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (M.P.) in M.A. No. 1674 of 1997. 
Siddhartha Dave, Vibha Datta Makhija and Dhannendra Kumar Sinha for 
the Appellants. 
B.K. Satija for the Respondents. 
J 
-
-
) 
-. 
) 
ST ATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH i·. BACHHA LAL (PASA Y AT. J. J 
1171 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by a learned Single Judge 
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Challenge before the High Court was in 
A 
a Misc. Appeal in Civil Revision
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.