Confession to sales tax investigator held inadmissible; unverified oral sales figures could not sustain the prosecution.

A statement made to a sales tax investigator authorised under section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1953 was treated as a confession to a police officer for the purposes of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and was inadmissible. The Court also found that oral evidence reconstructing sales totals from cash memo books was unsafe, because the original books were not produced, the source of the figures was unexplained, and no contemporaneous notes supported the totals. In one connected matter, the prosecution led no evidence; in another, the record did not prove false entries or failure to maintain true accounts. The acquittal was sustained and the State appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a statement made to a sales tax investigator authorised under section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1953 was inadmissible as a confession to a police officer under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act; whether the oral evidence of the investigating officer based on sales totals from cash memo books could be relied upon as secondary evidence; and whether the prosecution had led sufficient evidence to sustain the charges in the connected appeals.

Analysis: Under section 38(1) and section 38(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1953, a person authorised to assist in the investigation of an offence under the Act exercises powers akin to those of an officer in charge of a police station investigating a cognizable offence. On that footing, the authorised officer was treated as a police officer for the purpose of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, so the accused's statement admitting incorrect returns was a confession and was not admissible in evidence. As to the oral testimony of the investigating officer regarding sales figures, the Court found that although the original account books were not forthcoming, there was no reliable basis shown for the specific figures spoken to in evidence, no contemporaneous notes were produced, and the source of the totals remained unexplained; the testimony was therefore unsafe to act upon. In one appeal, the prosecution led no evidence at all, and in another the record did not establish that true accounts had not been maintained or that any particular purchase entry was false.

Conclusion: The confession was inadmissible, the oral evidence of sales totals could not be relied upon, and the charges were not proved; the acquittal was sustained and the State appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement made to an authorised investigator who exercises police-like powers under the Sales Tax Act is inadmissible if it amounts to a confession, and unverified oral reconstruction of figures unsupported by contemporaneous records cannot safely sustain a conviction.

---