# SITARAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 21
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-02-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Revisions Nos. 270 to 274 of 1959
- **Bench:** J. L. Kapur, K. C. Das Gupta, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sitaram-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-2374
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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 appella~ts 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.
.

## Text

•
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
SITARAM
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
21
(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 appella~ts 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~
1962
Bt.taram
••
S14te of
M aJli;·a Pradtsh
K•purJ.
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
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."
I~or 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
1962
Sitar.Jm
'.,~
Stale of
Madhya Pradesh
Kapur-J,.
Jg62
Sitoram
v.
.
S141e of
M atlhJa P14desh
KapurJ.
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
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 a~c
quashed.
ApjJC<ll8 al/u1ced.