3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

SITARAM

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

(J. L. KAPUR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and RAGHUBAR

DAYAL, JJ.) Criminal Trial--Offence of filing false return of Sales tax-Limitation-If trial barred after thi-ee months-0. P. and Berar Sale. Tax Act, 1947 (C. P. XX! of 1947), s. 26.

The appellats submitted their returns of sales tax .

More than three months afterwards a complaint was filed against them under s. 24( I) (b) and (g) of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act alleging that the returns filed were false anc! that the accounts produced were incorrect. They contended that the prosecution was barred by s. 26(2) of the Act which provided that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done or intended to be done . under the Act unless it was instituted within three months from the date of the act complained of.

Held, that the prosecution was barred by s. 26(2) of the Act. The Vl'Ords "any person" ins. 26(2) were words of wide import and included the appellants. There was no reason to restrict them to Government servants.

Both the making of the return and the production of the accounts were acts done under the Act; the return being filed under s. 10 and the accounts being produced under s. 15 of the Act. Section 26(2) was thus clearly applicable to the case. .

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 146 and 147 of 60.

Appeals by special leave fr<lm the. judgment and order dated February 11, 1960, of the Madhya.

Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 270 to 274 of 1959.

G. 0. Mathur, for the appellants. l.N. Shroff, for the respondents.

1962. February 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPUR, J. -There are two appeals directed against the order of the High Court of Madhya ' . .. -· ' .

- . 1962

February Ii.

EapurJ~

Bt.taram

•• S14te of M aJli; a Pradtsh

K•purJ.

Pradesh rejecting a Reference made by the Sessions Judge against the prosecution of th,-, appellants for contravening the provisions of the C. P . and Berar Sales Tax Act (C. P. XXI of 1947), hereinafter called the 'Act'.

A firm of which five brothers including the two appellants were partners Huhrnitted their sales tax returns for the quarters beginning June l, 194i, to the quarters ending December 31, 1951. A complaint was fil1Jd against the p1irtners on July

19, I 95i, on the ground that the returns filed by them were fals!' and the accounts produced wero incorrect and therefore an offence under s. 24(1)(h) and (g) of the Act was committed.

On December 12, I 9:i8, an obieetion was taken by the accused perFons that under s. 26(2) of the Act, the prosecution could not he instituted as it was barred by time, having been instituted more than three months nfter the commission of the offence.

The lParncd JTagiRt.rate dirl not go into the objection on the ground that it was not the proper forum for raising the objection.

Four revisions were taken to the 8cssions .Judge who on llfay 4, l 95!l, made a r,, forrncc to the High Court for qmishing tht' proceedings. 13ut tho High Court rejected the refcrenee on the grounrl that a person making a false , return neither act8 nor purports to act under the Act ancl therefore s. 26(2) is not applicable to him. H is againHt that order that these appeals were brought by Special Leave.

In order to decide this question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Aot.

Under s. 10 of the Act every dealer is required to furnish a return when called upon to do so and every registered dealer i8 rec1uired to furnish returns by such datc>s as may b1' prescribed. Thl' appellants arc registe1<'cl dealern unrl they hn.ve made returns nder that section. Section I 5 de:lls with

-, .

...

3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REP01tTS 23

production and inspection of' accounts and s. 24 enumerates the offences under the Act.

The alleged offence of the appellants falls under s. 34(1)

(b) and (g). i. e. failing without sufficient cause to submit any return or' furnishing false returns and knowingly producing incorrect accounts, registers or documents or knowingly furnishing incorrect information. Section 26 relates to the 'protection of persons acting in good faith and limitation for suits and prosecutions. The section when

• quoted is as follows : s. 26 (1) "No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any servant . of the Government for anything , which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or rules made thereunder . (2) No suit shall be instituted against the Government and no prosecution or uit shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done or intended to be done under this Act unless the suit or prosecution .has been instituted within three months from the date of the act complained of."

Ior the appellants, it was contended that the words "no prosecution or suit shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done'" in rnb-s. (2) of s. 26 cover their cases also and they fall within the words "any person". The respondent's submission on this point was that the two sub-sections of s. 26 should be read together and the intention of the Legislature was to give protection to Government servants in regard to prosecrrtions or other legal proceedings.

That, in our opinion, is not what the words used in sub-s. (2) mean. They are words of wider import and would ·

cover cases of all persons including persons other than Government servants. There are no words nistricting the .meaning of "an1 person" aqd nq

Sitar.Jm

'.,~ Stale of Madhya Pradesh

Kapur-J,.

Jg62

Sitoram

v. .

S141e of M atlhJa P14desh

KapurJ.

reason has been shown why those wor<lR should not include the appellant.s.

The ground on which the High Court rejected the Reference was that in its opinion the 11ppellants neither acted nor purported to act under any of the proviRions of the Act when they filed false returns or produced false accounts and in fal't they were rendering themRelvcs liable to puniRhment under the provisions of s. 24 of the Act. It observed as follows :-

"The test whether an aot is dont• or intend-' cd to be <lone under a ccrt:•in l:tw might well be whether the person who committed it. can, if challenged, reasonably justify his act. under any provision contained in that law".

This opinion is, in our view, not ;; ust:iinalile. When the appellants submitted their returns they did so under s. JO of th<' Act and when they produced their account~ they did so under s. 15 of the Act.

Therefore hoth the making of the reh; rns ancl production of the accounts 1vero done under the Act and cannot be said to b" outside the prov is ions of the Act.

In our opinion thn High Court wa8 in error in rojecting the Refere11ce. 'l'he appeals arn t.herefore allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the proceedings in the tri; d court ac

quashed.

ApjJC<ll8 al/u1ced.