AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (9) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made them over to another servant who was on the upper floor. Mr. Singh directed his orderly peon to recover the books. The peon was, however, prevented by the appellant from going to the place where the account books had been taken and in the scuffle which ensued between the two, the orderly's shirt was torn. Thereafter Mr. Singh went to the police station to lodge a complaint. The appellant, who was brought there by the Sub-Inspector, tendered an apology in writings and so Mr. Singh did not lodeg a complaint. He, however,, submitted a report in writing to the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes. The Superintendent thereupon reported the incident to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and eventually lodged a first information report on November 1. It is urged before us by Mr. Sarjo Prasad, who appears for the appellant, that mere snatching away of books does not amount to using force as contemplated by section 349, Indian Penal Code, and at any rate it does not amount to use of criminal force as contemplated by section 350, Indian Penal Code. If, therefore, the act of the appellant did not constitute the use of criminal force, his conviction under section 353, Indian Penal Code, c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce but only wanted to retrieve his own property of which Mr. Singh had taken possession without his permission. He also contended that the appellant's act has admittedly caused no injury or fear to Mr. Singh nor can it be said to have caused any justifiable annoyance to him. We cannot accept Mr. Sarjoo Prasad's contention that the appellant did not cause annoyance to Mr. Singh by snatching away the books from his hands nor do we accept his contention that the action of the appellant does not amount to an offence. The contention of Mr. Sarjoo Prasad that Mr. Singh could not inspect the account books without the permission of the appellant ignores the provisions of section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Bihar Act XIX of 1947) and rule 50 of the Rules framed under the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act provides that all accounts, registers and documents relating to stocks of goods or purchases, sales and deliveries of goods by any dealer and all goods kept in any place of business of any dealer shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by the Commissioner. It is common ground that the Commissioner is authorised by law to delegate his power to his subordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lear that Sri Hazari Lall, proprietor of M/s. Hazari Lall & Co., has deliberately obstructed me from seizing the double sets of accounts which were found in his business premises. He had further assaulted my peon in his business premises besides snatching away the double sets of accounts as referred above. He had thereby committed offence punishable under law." His first contention is that Mr. Singh had in fact seized the account books or had picked them with the object of seizing and as he had not complied with the requirement of sub-section (3) of section 17, that is, of recording his reasons in writing for making a seizure of the books, his act was illegal and the apellant was justified in resisting the seizure. In Support of his contention of relied on the unreported decision of the Patna HIgh Court in Prahlad Ram v. State. In that case account books (1) Criminal Revision NO. 838 of 1960 decided on October 6, 1960. had been seized by a Superintendent of commercial Taxes from the premises of a dealer for the purpose of inspecting them and it was held that the seizure was illegal because he had not recorded in writing his reason for making the seizure as required by sub-section (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he account books or while he was intending to seize them, the Commissioner's sanction would certainly have been required under sub-section (2) if in fact the appellant was prosecuted specifically for obstructing Mr. Singh. He could have been prosecuted for these offences even without proof of the fact that he had used criminal force. From the facts found it would no doubt appear that the appeallant has committed as offence under section 26(1) (h) of the Act as also under section 353, Indian Penal Code, because he has used criminal force. He could be prosecuted for either or both these offences at the discretion of the prosecution. It may be that he was not prosecuted in respect of both the offences and the prosecution was restricted to the offences under section 353, Indian Penal Code, only to obviate the necessity of obtaining the Commissioner's sanction. Even so, the prosecution cannot be said to have done something which is unwarranted by law. An offence under section 353, Indian Penal Code, is a graver offence than the one under section 26(1)(h) of the Act because it is punishable with imprisonment for a period up to two years or to payment of fine without any limit, or both, w....