http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SITARAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/1962

BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. GUPTA, K.C. DAS DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

CITATION:  1962 AIR 1146            1962 SCR  Supl. (3)  21  CITATOR INFO :  R          1972 SC2504  (24)  R          1974 SC 923  (31)

ACT: Criminal Trial--Offence of filing false return of Sales tax- Limitation-If  trial  barred after three months-C.   P.  and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (C.  P. XXI of 1947), s. 26.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants submitted their returns of sales tax.   More than  three months afterwards a complaint was filed  against them under s. 24(1)(b) and (g) of the C. P. and Berar  Sales Tax Act’ alleging that the returns filed Were false and 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 words "any person" in s. 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.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos.  146 and 147 of 60. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated February  11,  1960,  of the Madhya Pradesh  High  Court  in Criminal Revisions Nos. 270 to 274 of 1959. G.   C. Mathur, for the appellants. I.   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

of the High Court of Madhya 22 Pradesh  reiecting  a Reference made by the  Sessions  Judge against  the prosecution of. the appellant 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  submitted their sales tax  returns  for  the quarters  beginning  June 1, 1947, to  the  quarters  ending December  31,  1951.   A .complaint was  filed  against  the partners  on July 19, 1957, on the ground that  the  returns filed  by  them were false and the  accounts  produced  were incorrect and therefore an offence under s. 24(1)(b) and (g) of the Act was committed. On December 12, 1958, an objection was taken by the accused. persons  that  under s. 26(2) of the  Act,  the  prosecution could  not  be instituted as it was barred by  time,  having been instituted more than three months after the  commission of the offence.  The learned, Magistrate did 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 Sessions  Judge who on May 4, 1959, made a reference to  the High  Court for quashing the proceedings But the High  Court rejected the reference on the ground that a person making  a false return neither acts nor purports to act under the  Act and  therefore  s. 26(2) is not applicable to  him.   It  is against that order that these peals were brought by  Special Leave. In  order to decide this question, it is necessary to  refer to  the relevant provisions of the Act.  Under s. 10 of  the Act every dealer is required to furnish a return when called upon  to  do so and every registered dealer is  required  to furnish returns by such dates as may be prescribed.  The ap- pellants  are registered dealers and they have made  returns under that section.  Section 15 deals with 23 production  and inspection of accounts and s. 24  enumerates the  offenses  under the Act.  The alleged  offence  of  the appellants falls under is. 34(1) (b) and (g). i..e.  failing without  sufficient use 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 suit 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." For  the  appellants, it was contended that  the  words  "no prosecution or suit shall be, instituted against any  person in  respect of anything done" in sub-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 prosecutions or other legal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

proceedings.   That, in our opinion, is not *hat  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  restricting the meaning of "any person" and no 24 reason has been shown why those words should not include the appellants. The  ground on which the High Court rejected  the  Reference was  that  in its opinion the appellants neither  acted  nor purported to act under any of the provisions of the Act when they  filed false returns or produced false accounts and  in fact  they were rendering. themselves liable  to  punishment under  the provisions of s. 24 of the Act.  It  observed  as follows :-               "The  test whether an act is done or  intended               to  be done under a certain law 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 sustainable.   When  the appellants  submitted their returns they did so under s.  10 of the Act and when they produced their accounts they did so under  s. 15 of the Act.  Therefore both the making  of  the returns  and production of the accounts were done under  the Act  and cannot be said to be outside the provisions of  the Act. In our opinion the High Court was in error in rejecting  the Reference.  The appeals are therefore allowed, the order  of the High Court is set aside aid the proceedings in the trial court are quashed. Appeals allowed. 25