JUDGMENT
M. Ranga Reddy, J.
1. This is an application filed by the accused in C.C. No. 146 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 146 of 1992.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are in brief as follows : The first petitioner is a Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada 2. The second petitioner is Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office. M/s. Associated Automotives Sales Private Ltd., Vijayawada, are assessees on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada. The said business premises was inspected on December 27, 1991. While the inspection was in progress the second petitioner went to the business premises of the dealer and was there for some time. During the course of inspection certain material was discovered and on the basis of the said material the first petitioner made provisional assessment for the year 1991-92 through his proceedings dated March 21, 1992, enhancing the taxable turnover by Rs. 15,75,675. The tax effect on the enhanced turnover is Rs. 1,66,885. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Guntur, through his proceedings dated May 15, 1992, rejected the petition of the dealer for stay of collection of the enhanced tax. The final assessment show cause notice for the year 1990-91 has also been issued enhancing the taxable turnover by Rs. 21,65,620. At the time of inspection the petitioners were accompanied by three Commercial Tax Officers and four Assistant Commercial Tax Officers and other staff members. As the tax was enhanced the Managing Director of Associated Automotives Sales Private Ltd., Vijayawada, got a complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners for offences under sections 323, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners contend that the allegations in the complaint are absolutely false and the complaint is filed to demoralise them and with a view to coerce them so that the turnover is brought down. Under section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) the officers not below the rank of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers having jurisdiction over an area have the authority to inspect the books of account and goods of the dealer and for this purpose they can inspect the offices, shops and godowns. Sub-section (1) of section 37 of the said Act bars prosecution against any officer for any act done or purporting to be done under the said Act without prior sanction of the Government. Sub-section (2) of section 37 of the Act further states that no officer of the State Government shall be liable in respect of any such act in any civil and criminal proceedings if the Act was done in good faith in the course of execution of duties imposed on him or the discharge of functions entrusted to him under the said Act. As the petitioners are admittedly employees in Commercial Tax Department and as the complaint is filed without sanction either under section 37 of the Act or under section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure they contend that the complaint is not tenable and should be quashed.
3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the sanction as envisaged under section 37 of the Act is necessary in this case.
4. It is an undisputed fact that under section 28 of the Act the petitioners are competent to enter into the premises and inspect the same. The offence in question is said to have been committed during the course of inspection. The respondent is an employee of M/s. Associated Automotives Sales Pvt. Ltd. The allegations in the complaint are that on December 27, 1991, at about 11.00 a.m. the respondents (petitioners herein) trespassed into the show-room with a view to intimidate and annoy the complainant. It is further alleged that the respondents without showing any authorisation or identity cards began meddling with the articles exposed in the show-room and that the complainant who was in-charge of the show-room got annoyed and requested the respondents to disclose their identity. He further stated that the respondents then got enraged and abused him in foul language and pushed him aside. He further stated that after the complainant came to know that they are officers of Commercial Tax Department, he rendered all assistance. It is also admitted that the inspection continued till about 9.30 p.m. It is also stated that the respondents took signatures on some white papers forcibly. It is also alleged that the respondents caught hold of the collar of the complainant and pushed him down to the floor.
5. Section 37 of the Act reads as follows :
“(1) No suit, prosecution or other proceeding 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 sanction 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 any such act in any civil or criminal proceedings if the act was done in good faith in the course of the execution of duties imposed on him or the discharge of functions entrusted to him by or under this Act.”
6. This provision is made with the object that the officers are not unnecessarily harassed for the acts done by them in pursuance of their duties as such public servants. In the instant case the inspection was done for more than ten hours continuously and during that inspection lot of material was discovered which rendered them liable for enhanced tax. The assessments were revised for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 in pursuance of the material discovered. This complaint was filed in April, 1992, after issue of notice of provisional assessment. It is quite possible that some resistance might have been made at the time of inspection which might have necessitated some use of force to complete the inspection. According to sub-section (2) of section 37 no officer or servant of the State Government shall be liable in respect of any such act in any civil or criminal proceedings if the act was done in good faith in the course of execution of duties imposed on him or discharge of functions entrusted to him by or under this Act.
7. In a decision in Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari it was observed as follows :
“The offence alleged to have been committed must have something to do, or must be related in some manner, with the discharge of official duty. No question of sanction can arise under section 197, unless the act complained of is an offence; the only point to determine is whether it was committed in the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty.
It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits. What the court must find out is whether the act and the official duty are so inter-related that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of the official duty, though possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of the situation.”
8. In the instant case if the officers had acted in good faith and in the course of execution of duties imposed on them they are said to have committed offences protection is afforded under section 37 of the Act in respect of such cases.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I feel that previous sanction of Government is necessary. Hence, the petition is allowed.
10. Petition allowed.