The petitioner in these revision petitions, who is the same, was prosecuted in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Tuticorin for failure to submit the “A” return, as required by rule 11(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, an offence punishable under section 15 (a) and (c) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The proceedings before the joint Magistrate were summary in nature and except for a tabulated statement no judgment or a reasoned order was pronounced. The petitioner was convicted of the offence complained of and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Against this conviction and sentence, Crl. Appeal No. 65 of 1946 was filed by him before the Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli and the learned Judge holding that under section 414, Criminal Procedure Code, no appeal lay from the conviction and sentence of a First Class Magistrate exercising summary powers, rejected the appeal. Against that order of rejection, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1215 of 1946 which came before me on 22nd September, 1947. As the petitioner sought to revise the order of rejection of the appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, which order was perfectly correct, he had perforce to file Criminal Revision Case No. 1021 of 1947, to revise the order of the Joint Magistrate itself under sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On both these revisions I passed an order on the 22nd September, 1947, directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tuticorin to record evidence and submit the same to this Court on the various points referred to in that order in extenso which was in the following terms:

“The question for decision has narrowed down after hearing the arguments to the simple point as to whether the accused is a person who brings together the seller and the purchaser acting as a broker without having any dominion or right over the goods sold. According to the petitioner all that he does is to bring together the owners of the goods and the intending purchasers and receive a percentage of price of the goods as commission; he does not handle the goods himself, nor can he direct the delivery of possession to the purchasers. It is conceded by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that if these are the only facts, then the accused may not be a dealer as defined in the Madras General Sales Tax Act. But, on the other hand according to him, the accused is a person who effects a sale of the goods as the word "sale" is defined in sections, clause (h), Unfortunately during the progress of the trial which was summary in the Court of First Instance the parties did not seem to have concentrated their attention on the real facts which ought to have been proved; and, therefore, I think that the provisions of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be availed of in this revision. It is necessary in the interests of justice that fresh evidence should be taken as to:-

Firstly: The nature of the transactions entered into by the petitioner and the way in which he earns his commission, viz., is he only a person who brings the seller and the purchaser together without in any way concerning himself with the details of the transaction, the delivery of the goods the prices and various other things? Secondly: Has he got any dominion over the goods or is his direction or order necessary for the purchaser to get possession of the goods purchased by him? and Thirdly: What exactly is the role played by the owners of the goods; do they hand over possession to the accused so that he might find out purchasers, fix the prices with such purchasers, negotiate with them, and finally sell the goods, receive the payment and after deducting his commission pay only the balance amount to the owners. These are questions which have to be clarified. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tuticorin will record evidence let in by the prosecution as well as by the