Goondla Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. and Anr.

Commercial Tax officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf may for the purpose of this Act, require any dealer to produce before him the accounts, registers and other documents, and to furnish any other information relating to his business. (2) All accounts, registers and other documents

maintained by a dealer in the course of his business, the goods in his possession, and his officers, shops, godowns, vessels or vehicles shall be open to inspection by such officer any time during the business hours prescribed under the relevant law of the time being in force or where no such hours are prescribed at all reasonable times.

(3) If any such officer has reason to suspect that any

dealer is attempting to evade the payment of any tax or other amount due from him under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, registers or other documents of the dealers as he may consider necessary and shall given the dealer a receipt for the same. The accounts, registers and documents so seized shall be retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any injury or proceedings under this Act:

Provided that such accounts, registers and documents shall not be retained for more than thirty days at a time except with the permission of the next higher authority.

(4) For the purpose of sub-section (2) or sub-section

(3), any such officer shall have power to enter and search at any time during the business hours prescribed under the relevant law for the time being in force, or where such hours are prescribed, at all reasonable times, any officer, shop, godown, vessel, vehicle or any other place of business or any building or place where such officer has reason to believe that the dealer keeps or is, for the time bring, keeping any goods, accounts, registers or other documents of his business.

Provided that no residential accommodation not bring a shop-cum-residence shall be entered into and searched by any officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner except on the authority of an order issued by any officer not below the rank of a Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area; or an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department working in Vigilance and Enforcement Department having jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh.

And all searches under this sub-section shall so far as may be, made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 subject to the rules, if any, made in this behalf.

(5) The power conferred by sub-section (4) shall include

the power to break open .and box or re<;:eptacle in which any goods accou_nts, registers or other documents of the dealer may be contained, or to break open the door of any premises, or other documents may be kept:

Provided that the power to break.open the door-shall t be exercised only after the owner or any other person iri occupatio'n of the premises, if he is present therein, fails or refuses to open the door on being called .,

upon to do so.

Section 37 Protection. .. of acts done in good faith:

(1) No 'suit, prosecution or other procee'ding shall lie

.against any officer or servant of the State Government ·for any act done or'purporting to be done under this Act without the previous sandion of the State Government, and no ·such suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall be instituted after the expiry of six months from the date of the act complained of. (2) No officer or servant of the State Government shall

be liable in respect of an'y such act in any civil or .criminal proceeding if the act was done in good faith in the course of the execution of duties imposed on him or the'discharge off unctions entrusted to him by or under this Act.

¶6Section 37 like Section 1.97 Cr.P.C. aims at p;-eventing vexatious prosecution and proceedings. against public servants.

¶7Section 37 puts embargo on institution of suits, prosecution or other _proceedings against .any officer or any servant of the State Government for any act done or purported to be done under the Act without previous sanction of the State Government. There is a further embargo i.e. no such suit, prosecution or proceeding shall be instituted after the expiry of six months from the date of the act complained of. Sub-section (2) affords protection to the officer referred to above in respect of an act if the same was done in good faith in the ·course of execution of duties imposed or the discharge of functions entrusted by or under the Act.

¶8"Gobd faith" according to the definition in General -;-t" Clauses Act means a thing, which is in fact done honestly

whether it is done negligently or not (See H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaj{ Rao Scinida Bahadur of Gwalior etc. v. Union of India and Anr. 1971 (1) SCC 85).

¶9Anything done with due care and attention which is not malafide is presumed .to have been done in "good faith" ,(See Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishan Govind Bhanu and Ors. (1959 SCR 564) -

¶10Section 197 Cr.P.C: provides for protection to public servants in discharge of official duties. There is a need to balance between protection to officers and protection to citizens.

¶11In Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2006 (1) sec 557) it, was observed as follows:

"The protection given under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the.alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon y the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused ~f an offence alleged to have been committed by him while ~cting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official. act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done.and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. One safe and sure test in this regard would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty, if the answer to his question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty and there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant. This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 does not .r-g.et immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case."

¶12In State of Haryana and Ors. v Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992 Supp. (1) sec 335), it was observed as follow:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series ..... of decisions relating tb the exercise of the extraordinary

power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be "1 -1 exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information

report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case ag~inst the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report

and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the CQde except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code .. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the

FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by ·H

a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint

are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for i proceeding against the· accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any

of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceedin·g is manifestly attended

with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 13. As the factual scenario goes to show the proceedings were nothing but abuse of the process of law.

¶14In view of what is stated in Section 37 of the Act and the ratio in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. The proceedings in CC No.356/ 96 pending before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karimnagar stand quashed.

The appeal is allowed.