Lawful seizure during tax inspection and forcible snatching from an officer satisfied obstruction under section 353 IPC.

A Sales Tax Officer lawfully inspecting books was entitled under section 13 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to take possession of a suspicious account book for investigation, because the power of inspection included the power to seize the document when necessary. Forcibly snatching the book from the officer while he was retaining it in official custody constituted use of force to obstruct a public servant in discharge of duty, so the ingredients of section 353 IPC were satisfied and the conviction was upheld, though the sentence was reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Sales Tax Officer was acting within his statutory authority when he sought to take possession of the account book. (ii) Whether snatching the account book from the officer constituted an offence under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether the Sales Tax Officer was acting within his statutory authority when he sought to take possession of the account book.

Analysis: The officer had inspected the dealer's books and, on finding a suspicious account book, was entitled under section 13 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to seize such document if necessary for investigation. The statutory power of inspection carried with it the power to take possession of the document in the circumstances found by the Courts below. The officer was therefore acting in the discharge of his lawful duties.

Conclusion: The officer was authorised to take possession of the account book.

Issue (ii): Whether snatching the account book from the officer constituted an offence under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The finding was that the applicant forcibly jerked the book out of the officer's hands when the officer sought to retain it in his possession. Such conduct amounted to use of force to obstruct a public servant in the discharge of official duty, and the criminality was not displaced by the contention that the inspection had already been completed.

Conclusion: The ingredients of section 353 of the Indian Penal Code were made out and the conviction was justified.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on the conviction, though the substantive sentence was reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public servant is lawfully empowered by statute to inspect and seize documents, forcible snatching of the document from his hands in the course of that duty constitutes obstruction punishable under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

---