K.M. Sundaram vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.M. Natarajan, J.—The Petitioner herein was convicted by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 2. Cuddalore, u/s 14(1) (a) and (c)

of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 10 of 1939) and sentenced to pay a tine of Rs. 1,000, and

also convicted u/s 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Public (Health) Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 with a default sentence of one month simple

imprisonment under each offence. On appeal, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate modified the conviction of the Petitioner into one u/s 14(1)(b)

instead of Section 14 (a) and (c) of Act, 10 of 1939. But, however, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate retained the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000

imposed under the aforesaid Section apart from the conviction and sentence u/s 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act. The aggrieved

Petitioner has filed this revision questioning the correctness and the legality of the judgment of the appellate Court.

The facts of the case giving rise to this revision are as follows: P.W. 1, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, as per the directions of the Deputy

Commercial Tax Officer caused the purchase of two tickets, viz:, S. Nos. 64151 and 64152 through his staff (P.Ws. 2 and 4) on 24th September,

1979, in the Cinema theatre belonging to the Petitioner and again on 12th December, 1979, three tickets bearing serial Nos. 33088, 33089 and

76703, were purchased through P.Ws. 3,5 and 6. On verification of the records kept in the theatre premises, it was found that the tickets bearing

the above said serial numbers were again sold on the next day and they were not properly accounted for, and hence the complaint was launched

by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer against the Petitioner. The Petitioner denied the offence. Both the Courts below found the Petitioner guilty

and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence the aggrieved accused has filed this revision.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised various contentions challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to the Petitioner. The main

contention of the revision Petitioner is that the complainant, viz., the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was not competent to prosecute the revision

Petitioner on the date when the offence was committed. According to him, Act 10 of 1939, as amended upto 30th September, 1981, did not

envisage prosecution by a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for offences committed u/s 14(1)(b) on the date when the offence was committed.

The learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute the same and submitted that no such notification empowering the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

to make complaint for the offences committed u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, 10 of 1939 was issued by the State Government till 5th February, 1982, on

which date the Government issued a notification in G.O.P. 147 , Commercial taxes and Religious Endowments, 5th February, 1982, authorising

Deputy Commercial Tax Officers to make complaint for the purpose of the said Section 14(1-B).

For the purpose of proper appreciation of the relevant provisions of the Act, Section 14(11-B))is extracted hereunder:

No Court shall take cognizance of an offence falling under sub-Clause. (i) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), except upon complaint, in writing,

made by any officer, not below the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer: and authorised in this behalf by the State Government by general or

special order-

In view of the above provision, it is clear that on the date when the offence was committed, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was not

authorised by any general or special order to prefer a complaint against the revision Petitioner, the entire proceedings against him are vitiated.

In view of the above finding, it is needless to go into the merits of the case and other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revision

Petitioner.

In the result, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence inflicted upon him are set aside and he is acquitted. Fine, if any, paid is

directed to be refunded forthwith to the Petitioner.