1970 (11) TMI 98 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Clarifies Officer's Right to Enter Premises for Inspection Under Sales Tax Act, Upholds Conviction for Damaging Jeep

The High Court clarified that the officers had the right to enter the mill premises during operational hours for inspection under the Andhra Pradesh Sales ... - Issues Involved:1. Unauthorized entry by P.W. 1 and his staff into the mill premises.2. Alleged private defense by the accused.3. Conviction under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code for causing mischief.4. Acquittal by the Sessions Judge and the appeal by the State.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Unauthorized Entry by P.W. 1 and His Staff:The prosecution's case, supported by the testimony of 16 witnesses, stated that P.W. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, and his staff entered the Jayalakshmi Bharat Oil Mill to verify the stock of 37 bags of groundnut kernel. The mill was operational with lights on, and the officers entered through the wicket gate after the main gate was not opened. They requested the register from A-5 to verify the stock entry, which led to a disturbance and subsequent assault on P.W. 1 and his staff. The Sessions Judge held that P.W. 1 and his party had no right to enter the premises at night without following the provisions of sections 165 and 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, thus violating section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act. However, the High Court clarified that the provisions of section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to non-residential buildings, and the officers were acting within their rights under section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act, which allows inspection at reasonable times, including during the mill's operational hours.2. Alleged Private Defense by the Accused:The accused contended that they acted in private defense as P.W. 1 and his staff had no right to enter the mill premises at night. The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused under sections 147, 332, 352, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, citing the right of private defense. The High Court, however, noted that section 99 of the Indian Penal Code negates the right of private defense against acts by public servants acting in good faith under the color of their office. P.W. 1 and his staff were performing their official duties, and there was no reasonable cause for apprehension of death or grievous hurt. Thus, the accused could not claim private defense for attacking P.W. 1 and others.3. Conviction under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code for Causing Mischief:The Sessions Judge found A-7 and A-11 guilty of causing mischief by damaging the jeep APG 4782 and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 200 or, in default, to undergo R.I. for four months. The High Court upheld this conviction, noting consistent evidence of the accused damaging the jeep, which was stationed outside the mill premises.4. Acquittal by the Sessions Judge and the Appeal by the State:The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of charges under sections 147, 332, 352, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, citing the right of private defense. The State appealed this acquittal. The High Court found that the lower appellate court failed to discuss the evidence regarding the complicity of each accused in the various offenses. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the lower appellate court to consider the evidence against each accused individually and determine their liability, either for overt acts or constructively if there was rioting.Conclusion:The High Court remanded the case to the lower appellate court for a detailed examination of the evidence against each accused, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of individual and constructive liability in the context of the offenses charged. The High Court also upheld the conviction of A-7 and A-11 under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code for causing mischief.