Statutory inspection power permits temporary securing of account books, and obstruction of the Inspector can attract criminal liability.

A statutory power of inspection under section 29 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 includes the ancillary authority to enter business premises and temporarily secure account books for effective inspection, even if the dealer does not voluntarily produce them. Such temporary securing is not seizure where it is aimed at inspection and not dispossession for retention. Resistance to the Inspector's lawful discharge of duty, including removal of the books and use of criminal force, attracted liability under sections 353 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, and the plea of private defence was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Sales Tax Inspector, acting under section 29 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, was entitled to take temporary possession of account books for inspection and whether resistance to such action attracted liability under section 353 and section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The statutory scheme in section 29(2) and section 29(4) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 confers a right of inspection and an ancillary power to enter and search business premises for that purpose. Read together, those provisions mean that the inspecting authority may secure access to account books even if the dealer does not voluntarily produce them. A forcible attempt to obtain the books temporarily for inspection is not the same as seizure within section 29(3), because seizure contemplates dispossession of the dealer for retention beyond the immediate purpose of inspection. The conduct of the dealer's son in removing the books also fell within the mischief of section 46(h) of the Act, and the plea of private defence was therefore unavailable. The Inspector was thus acting in execution of his duty as a public servant, and the use of criminal force to obstruct him satisfied the ingredients of the offences found by the courts below.

Conclusion: The Inspector's action was within his statutory authority and the appellant's obstruction constituted offences under section 353 and section 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained because the statutory power of inspection included the limited authority necessary to prevent evasion of inspection, and the appellant's resistance did not defeat the Inspector's lawful discharge of duty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers power to inspect accounts and to enter and search premises for that purpose, the inspecting officer may temporarily secure the books needed for inspection, and such conduct is not seizure if its object is not dispossession of the dealer but effective inspection.

---