Skip to content


The State of Karnataka Vs. Babu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Petition Nos. 836 to 844 of 1982 and 512 of 1983
Judge
ActsKarnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 12B(1) and 29(1)
AppellantThe State of Karnataka
RespondentBabu and ors.
Advocates:T.J. Chouta, High Court Government Pleader
Excerpt:
- air force act, 1950.[c.a. no. 45/1950]. section 190 & pension regulations for air force (1961), regulations 3 & 16: [anand byrareddy, j] pensionary benefits petitioner was deputed to public sector undertaking he opted for premature retirement from air force on permanent absorption in public sector undertaking petitioner was entitled to benefit of 7 years weightage in respect of pension and 5 years in respect of gratuity - he was denied weightage on account of absorption into a public sector undertaking though in similar case of person taking premature retirement for personal reasons held, it is arbitrary and violative of article 16 of the constitution. note (1) under para 5(a) and (b) of the government of india letter no. 1(5)/87/d (pension/service) dated 30.10.1987 was quashed. .....theft in building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any other offences under the penal code punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment; but on a close reading of the provisions, it would appear that the intention of the legislature was not to so restrict the application of the provisions contained therein. wide discretion has been given to the court in the matter of releasing the accused on admonition instead of sentencing him to any punishment. the provisions are applicable even in case of offences punishable with fine only or where the offences committed are trivial in nature. the expressions 'or any offence punishable with fine only' used therein are wide enough to include the offences under other laws, other than the offences under the indian penal code.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Patil, J.

1. These revisions arise out of the orders passed by the J.M.F.C., Harihar in C.C. Nos. 302 of 1981, 305 of 1981, 369 of 1981, 312 of 1981, 311 of 1981, 310 of 1981, 306 of 1981, 304 of 1981, 303 of 1981 and 307 of 1981, respectively whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the respondents, who were accused in different cases, for contravention of section 12B(1) punishable under section 29(1)(g) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and released them on admonition in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Since the question of law raised is common to all of them, they are heard simultaneously and are disposed of by the common order.

3. The learned Magistrate has proceeded to convict the accused on their pleading guilty and having regard to the fact that they were all first offenders has thought it proper to release them on admonition.

4. Mr. T. J. Chouta, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, submitted that the provision of sub-section (3) of section 360, Cr. P.C., were not applicable to such cases of economical offences and the provisions in sub-section (3) of section 360 were restricted to particular offences mentioned therein and are not applicable to the offences committed under other laws and as such the orders passed by the learned Magistrate releasing the accused on admonition are wholly illegal, and therefore, deserved to be set aside.

5. Although the accused in all these cases are served, they have not appeared.

6. One of the contentions advanced by Mr. Chouta is that where the accused is found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 29(1)(g) of the Act, there is no escape from imposing a minimum sentence of fine of Rs. 250 and the learned Magistrate was, therefore, not justified in releasing the accused on admonition merely because they were first offenders.

7. Sub-section (3) of section 360, Cr. P.C., read as follows :

'In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any offence under the Indian Penal Code (50 of 1860), punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment or any offence punishable with fine only and no previous conviction is proved against him, the court before which he is so convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or any extenuating circumstances under which the offence with committed, instead of sentencing him to any punishment, release him after due admonition.'

Although from a reading of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 360, Cr. P.C., it would appear on the first flush that the provisions would be applicable only in cases of such offences as enumerated in first part of sub-section (3) of section 360 like theft, theft in building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any other offences under the Penal Code punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment; but on a close reading of the provisions, it would appear that the intention of the legislature was not to so restrict the application of the provisions contained therein. Wide discretion has been given to the court in the matter of releasing the accused on admonition instead of sentencing him to any punishment. The provisions are applicable even in case of offences punishable with fine only or where the offences committed are trivial in nature. The expressions 'or any offence punishable with fine only' used therein are wide enough to include the offences under other laws, other than the offences under the Indian Penal Code specifically mentioned, which are punishable with fine only. No provision either from the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Sales Tax Act has been brought to my notice whereby the application of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 360 has been excluded. May be, the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 360 have not been happily worded, and as stated earlier, on a first flush, it would appear that the provisions, would be applicable only to such of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. But, that is not the intention of the legislature. If such was the intention of the legislature, there would not have been any difficulty to make specific provisions excluding such of the offences coming under other laws, particularly when the legislature had taken care while enacting the provisions in section 361, Cr. P.C., making it obligatory on the court in all cases to give reasons for not invoking the provisions contained in section 360, Cr. P.C. Therefore, it is difficult to concede the submission made by Mr. Chouta that the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 360, Cr. P.C., were not applicable to the offences under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

8. It appears, the learned Magistrate, having regard to the fact that the accused were first offenders, has thought it proper to invoke the provisions of section 360(3), Cr. P.C., as the law requires, and he has accordingly proceeded to release them on admonition, instead of sentencing them to any punishment. The question of imposing minimum sentence of fine as provided under section 29(1)(g) arises only in case where the court, after considering the facts of a particular case, character and antecedents of the accused, and other aspects as provided in sub-section (3) of section 360, comes to the conclusion that the accused cannot be dealt with under section 360 and where the court considers that it is a fit case to deal with the accused under this section and releases on admonition, the question of sentencing does not arise. Therefore, it appears, the Magistrate has not committed any error in releasing the accused on admonition, having regard to the fact that they were the first offenders.

9. In the result and for the reasons stated above, the revisions fails and they are accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //