Snatching inspection records from a tax officer can amount to criminal force under the Penal Code, with prosecution under general law upheld.

Snatching account books from a sales tax officer during a lawful inspection was held to amount to force and criminal force because the act caused a jerk to the officer's hand and interfered with his physical control of the documents. The conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustained. The Court also held that prior sanction under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was not required where the facts disclosed the graver general offence under the Penal Code, even though they also amounted to a statutory obstruction offence. Proceeding under the general law was not colourable, and the prosecution was valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether snatching account books from a sales tax officer during a lawful inspection amounted to use of force and criminal force so as to sustain a conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (ii) Whether the prosecution was invalid for want of prior sanction under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, or as a colourable attempt to avoid the statutory protection attached to the lesser offence.

Issue (i): Whether snatching account books from a sales tax officer during a lawful inspection amounted to use of force and criminal force so as to sustain a conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The statutory definition of force includes causing motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to another person or to something connected with that person. Snatching books from the hands of the inspecting officer necessarily caused a jerk to his hand and affected his sense of feeling. The officer was lawfully entitled to inspect the books under section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and the dealer was bound to permit the inspection. The act was not a mere recovery of property but an intentional interference that caused annoyance to the officer.

Conclusion: The act constituted use of force and criminal force, and the conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution was invalid for want of prior sanction under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, or as a colourable attempt to avoid the statutory protection attached to the lesser offence.

Analysis: The want of sanction would matter if the prosecution were for obstructing inspection under section 26 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, but the accused was prosecuted for the graver general offence under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for which no sanction was required. The Court held that the facts disclosed both the general offence and the statutory obstruction, and the prosecution was entitled to proceed under the graver provision. The adoption of the general law was not colourable merely because it avoided the sanction requirement attached to the lesser offence.

Conclusion: The prosecution was valid and not vitiated for want of sanction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both grounds, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Snatching documents from the hands of a lawfully inspecting public officer can amount to force and criminal force under the Penal Code, and where the same facts disclose both a special statutory obstruction and a graver general offence, the prosecution may proceed under the general law without the special statute's sanction requirement.

---