1. Tax officer's surprise inspection of account books — Snatching of books by dealer — Conviction under Section 353, Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 310
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.J. IMAM, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
1. Chandrika Sao (In Cr. A. No. 35 of 61) and;
Versus
State of Bihar (In both the Appeals), Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 35 and 36 of 1961, D/27-9-1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. K. Sinha, Advocate, with him), for Appellant (In both the Appeals); Mr. S. P. Varma , Advocate, for Respondent (In both the appeals).
Advocates:
K.SINHA, S.P.Varma, SARJU PRASAD
K.SINHA, S.P.Varma, SARJU PRASAD
Snatching an object from a person's hand constitutes "force" under Section 349 IPC as it causes motion or change of motion to the body. Such an act, if intentional and without consent, amounts to criminal force, and prosecution under general law is valid even if a special act applies.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 349, 350 and 353 - Sales Tax Act - Section 17 and 26(1)(h) - Use of force - Snatching of account books from the hands of a public servant during inspection - Whether such act amounts to use of force under Section 349 and criminal force under Section 350 - Held: Snatching books causes a jerk to the hand, resulting in motion or change of motion and affecting the sense of feeling, which constitutes use of force under Section 349 IPC. When done intentionally without consent to cause annoyance, it amounts to criminal force. (Paras 4-6)
(B) Sales Tax Act - Section 17 - Seizure vs. Inspection - Merely picking up books for perusal during a lawful surprise visit does not amount to "seizure," which implies confiscation or forcible taking possession. Therefore, the requirement to record reasons in writing for seizure is not attracted. (Para 8)
(C) Prosecution - Sanction - Where an act constitutes an offense under both a special statute requiring sanction and a graver offense under the general penal law not requiring sanction, the prosecution is not colourable in choosing to prosecute under the general law. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
A public servant conducting a surprise inspection of account books at a business premises had the books snatched away from his hands by the proprietor. A scuffle ensued, resulting in the tearing of an attendant's clothing. The proprietor was convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The act of snatching books caused a jerk to the officer's hand, constituting "force" under Section 349 IPC and "criminal force" under Section 350 IPC. The officer was lawfully in possession of the books for inspection, and the act did not constitute a "seizure" requiring written reasons. The prosecution under the general penal law was valid despite the existence of a specific provision in the Sales Tax Act.
Issues: Whether snatching books from a public servant's hand constitutes criminal force under the Indian Penal Code; whether such an act constitutes an illegal seizure under the Sales Tax Act; and whether prosecution under the general penal law is permissible without the sanction required under the special act.
Ratio Decidendi: Snatching an object from another's hand causes a change of motion to the person's body, satisfying the definition of "force" under Section 349 IPC. If done intentionally to cause annoyance, it is "criminal force." Furthermore, a person can be prosecuted for a graver offense under general law even if a lesser offense under a special act (requiring sanction) is also committed.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether snatching books constitutes criminal force under Sections 349 and 350, IPC — Whether prosecution under Section 353, IPC is colourable to avoid statutory sanction. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 )
3. Snatching books causes motion to the holder's hand, constituting force — Surprise inspections are lawful under Bihar Sales Tax Act — Prosecution may choose graver general law charges. (Para 4 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 12 )
4. Snatching an object from a person's hand causes motion or change of motion to that person, amounting to use of force under Section 349, IPC. (Para 4 , 12 )
5. Appeals dismissed; convictions under Section 353, Indian Penal Code upheld. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Does snatching an object from someone's hand constitute force under Section 349, IPC?
Yes. Snatching an object causes a jerk to the hand, resulting in motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to the person, which satisfies the definition of force under Section 349, IPC. (Para 4 , 12 )
7. Does the act of picking up books for inspection constitute seizure under the Bihar Sales Tax Act?
No. Merely holding books found on premises for perusal is not seizure. Seizure implies confiscation or forcible taking possession, which is distinct from picking up an article for inspection. (Para 8 )
8. Can a person be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code for an act that also violates a specific statute requiring sanction for prosecution?
Yes. If an act constitutes both a specific statutory offense and a graver offense under general law, the prosecution may choose to proceed under the general law without needing the statutory sanction. (Para 9 , 10 )
Judgement
MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Patna upholding the appellant s conviction under S. 353, Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against him.
2. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:
3. On the evening of October 29, 1957, Mr. Bhupendra Narain Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Patna Sadar circle, paid a surprise visit to the shop of Hazari Lall and Co., in Barah town in order to inspect the books of accounts maintained by the shop. At that time the appellant Hazari Lall was in the shop. Mr. Singh found that two sets of account books were kept in the shop. He took them up and started looking into them. The appellant snatched away both the books from him, passed them on to one of his servants who made them over to another servant who was on the upper floor. Mr. Singh directed his orderly peon to recover the books. The peon was, however, prevented by the appellant from going to the place where the account books had been taken and in the scuffle which ensued between the two, the orderly s shirt was torn. Thereafter Mr. Singh went to the police station to lodge a complaint. The appellant who was brought there by the Sub-Inspector, tendered an apology in writing and so Mr. Singh did not lodge a complaint. He, however, submitted a report in writing to the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes. The Superintendent thereupon reported the incident to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and eventually lodged a first information report on November 1.
4. It is urged before us by Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, who appears for the appellant, that mere snatching away of books does not amount to using force as contemplated by S. 349, I. P. C. and at any rate it does not amount to use of criminal force as contemplated by S. 350, Indian Penal Code. If, therefore, the act of the appellant did not constitute the use of criminal force, his conviction under S. 353, I. P. C. cannot be sustained. His contention is that no force was used against the person of Mr. Singh and, therefore, the requirements of S. 349, I. P. C. were not satisfied. Section 349, I. P. C. reads thus:
"Force-A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other s sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:
First. -By his own bodily power.
Secondly. - By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
Thirdly. - By inducing any animal to move, to change its notion, or to cease to move".
It would he clear from a bare perusal of the section that one person can be said to have used force against another if he causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion to that other. By snatching away the books which Mr. Singh was holding the appellant necessarily caused a jerk to the hand or hands of Mr. Singh in which he was holding the books. His act, therefore, may be said to have caused motion to Mr. Singh s hand or hands. Further, the natural effect of snatching the books from the hand or hands of Mr. Singh would be to affect the sense of feeling of the hand or hands of Mr. Singh. We have, therefore no doubt that the action of the appellant amounts to use of force as contemplated by S. 349, I. P. C
5. Mere use of force, however is not enough to bring an act within the terms of S. 353, I. P. C. It has further to be shown that force was used intentionally to any person witho
