JUDGMENT

JASWANT SINGH, J.:— The above noted three appeals by special leave which are directed against the common judgment and order dated August 3, 1973 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeals Nos. 241, 244 and 256 of 1972 and R. C. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1972* upholding the acquittal of the respondents (who were partners of the firm called Kullupalam Lads Jewellery Mart, Kottayam, registered for jewellery business under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules made thereunder of the charges under S. 46 (1) (a) of the Act for submission of untrue returns, under S. 46 (1) (c) of the Act for failure to keep true and complete accounts, and under S. 46 (2) (c) of the Act for fraudulent evasion of tax must be dismissed as they have no legs to stand upon.

* Reported in 1973 Ker LT 731.

2. It appears that the respondents had submitted returns of their aforesaid firms sales turnover to the Sales Tax Officer, Kottayam II Circle for the months of January, February and March, 1969 on February 18, 1969, March 18, 1969 and April 18, 1969 respectively declaring a total sales turnover of Rs. 47,431 - during January, 1969, Rs. 25,025,20 paise during February, 1969 and Rs. 35,712,97 paise during March, 1969. On receipt of special information that the turnovers shown in the aforesaid returns were far below the actual turnovers, the Kottayam Sales Tax Intelligence Squad and the Sales Tax Central Intelligence Squad headed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Trivandrum, made a surprise entry into the respondents business premises at the J. B. Road, Kottayam, on February 20, 1970 at 11.30 A.M. for verification of the respondents firms accounts and goods. In compliance with the demand made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who headed the Squads, respondent No. 1 produced before the former certain books of account viz. current note books, bill books, stock register of the sales and purchases, and purchase bills in current use relating to the aforesaid business carried on by his firm and placed the same on a table in a room adjacent to the firms show room for inspection. While examining these account books, the Inspecting party noticed some other account papers in the form of diary size account books, ledger size account book, exercise account books and quarter size papers lying on that very table. The Inspecting Party took hold of the second set of account books and started checking and comparing the entries existing therein with the entries in the aforesaid books of account produced by respondent No. 1 on their demand. Finding that a number of the transactions of sale and purchase of the jewellery entered in the second set of account books, which hereinafter will be referred for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion as the secret books of account as described by the courts below, were not entered in the books of account produced by respondent No. 1 on demand by him (which will hereinafter be referred to as the account books intended for official purposes) and that as against the figures declared in the aforesaid returns, the secret books of account revealed a total turn-over of Rs. 1,34,899.16 paise for January, 1969, a turn-over of Rs. 87,777.39 paise for February, 1969 and a turn-over of Rs. 1,11,181,85 paise for March, 1969, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner directed the Sales Tax Intelligence Officer, Kottayam, who was one of the members of the Inspecting Party led by him, to seize both the sets of account books which was duly done by the latter. On the basis of the result of the aforesaid inspection conducted on February 20, 1970, the Sales Tax Officer, Kottayam, II Circle, filed three complaints in the Court of District Magistrate, Kottayam alleging contravention by the respondents of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the trial