Statutory seizure must be proved lawful before resistance can be treated as a criminal offence.

Where the prosecution relies on a statutory power of seizure, it must prove that the property seized clearly falls within the statutory description. The Court held that the books taken from the petitioners were not shown to be accounts, registers or other documents of the dealer within section 28(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, so the seizure was not proved lawful. Because the seizure was unauthorised, the petitioners were entitled to resist recovery of their books, and their conduct was protected by private defence under section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal convictions and sentences were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the books seized from the petitioners were shown to be accounts, registers or documents falling within section 28(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and whether the seizure was therefore lawful; (ii) whether resistance to the unlawful seizure attracted criminal liability or was protected by the right of private defence under section 99 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether the books seized from the petitioners were shown to be accounts, registers or documents falling within section 28(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and whether the seizure was therefore lawful.

Analysis: Section 28(3) permits seizure only of accounts, registers or other documents of the dealer where an officer has reason to suspect tax evasion. The Court held that the prosecution had to prove that the books taken from the first petitioner were of that description and related to the business of the mill. The evidence did not establish the contents of the books, and their mere appearance or the first petitioner's attempt to remove them did not justify an inference that they were business records within the section. The prosecution therefore failed to show that the officer's seizure was authorised by law.

Conclusion: The seizure was not proved to be lawful or within section 28(3).

Issue (ii): Whether resistance to the unlawful seizure attracted criminal liability or was protected by the right of private defence under section 99 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Since the seizure was not proved to be legally authorised, the petitioners were entitled to resist the taking back of their books if the officer had exceeded his powers. The Court applied the principle that there is no right of private defence against a public servant's act only when the act reasonably causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and found that the officer's conduct, though bona fide, did not eliminate the petitioners' right to recover possession of the books. No excessive force or injury was shown.

Conclusion: The petitioners' conduct did not amount to an offence and was protected by private defence.

Final Conclusion: The criminal convictions and sentences could not be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove a lawful seizure and the petitioners' resistance was within the scope of private defence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution relies on a statutory power of seizure, it must prove that the property seized clearly falls within the statutory description; if the seizure is not shown to be authorised, reasonable resistance to recover possession may be protected by private defence.

---