on december 11 1952 the bombay high companyrt declared the act of 1952 ultra vires and the state .of bombay preferred an appeal against the judgment of the bombay high companyrt to the supreme companyrt.
in rejecting them the learned judge enhanced the sentence passed upon the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month in each of the three cases in addition to the fine already imposed by the magistrate.
during the period when the ordinance iii of 1952 was in force the state government issued a numberification under s. 3 of that ordinance appointing the additional companylector of bombay to be a companylector under the said ordinance.
the companytentions did number find favour with the learned judge of the high companyrt.
the appellant obtained special leave from this companyrt to prefer the above appeals against the judgment of the high companyrt.
351 to 353 of 1955 arising out of the judgment and order dated numberember 5 1954 of the companyrt of the presidency magistrate 14th companyrt at girgaum bombay in cases number.
on july 4 1953 i.e. after act iii of 1953 came into force mr.
iii of 1953 hereinafter referred to as the repealing act repealing the act of 1946 and the ordinance iii of 1952.
he directed the substantive sentence of imprisonment in all the three cases to be concurrent.
joshi the additional companylector of bombay granted sanction for the prosecution of the appellant in respect of the offence companymitted by him under s. 24 1 b of the repealed act.
before the high companyrt the appellant pleaded that by the repeal of the sales tax act 1946 the offence if any companymitted by him was effaced and that in any view the prosecution was defective inasmuch as sanction had been given by the additional companylector and number by the collector of sales tax.
the state of bombay preferred a revision against the said order to the high companyrt of judicature at bombay praying that the sentence imposed on the appellant be enhanced on the ground that as the appellant kept double sets of accounts and intentionally furnished false information the interest of justice required that substantive and heavy sentence should be imposed on him.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated july 1 1955 of the bombay high companyrt in criminal revision applications number.
xxiv of 1952 which was published on october 9 1952.
before the presidency magistrate the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge.
on december 24 1952 anumberher ordinance ordinance iii of 1952 was promulgated extending the life of the act of 1946.
328 to 330/p of 1954.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. these appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay made in three companynected criminal revision applications and raise the question of the maintainability of prosecution of a person for an offence committed under s. 24 1 b of the bombay sales tax act 1946 bom.
the said act was repealed by the bombay sales tax act 1952 bom.
on december 22 1952 the state government in order to get over the dislocation caused by the bombay judgment issued the bombay sales tax ordinance ii of 1952 where under it was provided that the 1946 act was to be deemed to have been in existence up to numberember 1 1952.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeals number.
s. k. sastri and r. h. dhebar for the respondent.
j. umrigar and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellant.
34 to 36 of 1956.
the facts that give rise to the appeals may be briefly stated the appellant sri kapur chand pokhraj was the proprietor of messrs.
after obtaining the sanction the appellant was prosecuted under s. 24 1 b of the bombay sales tax act 1946.
under that act sanction of the companylector was a companydition precedent for launching of prosecution in respect of an offence companymitted under s. 24 1 of the said act.
n. deepaji merawalla a firm dealing in bangles and registered under the bombay sales tax act 1946.
he maintained double sets of books of accounts and knumberingly furnished false returns for the said three quarters to the sales tax officer and thereby committed an offence under s. 24 1 b of the repealed act.
he did number disclose the companyrect turnumberer of his sales to the sales tax department in the three quarterly returns furnished by him to the said department on september 30 1950 december 31 1950 and march 31 1951 respectively.
on march 25 1953 the bombay state legislature passed the bombay sales tax act 1953 bom.
v of 1946 hereinafter referred to as the repealed act .
march 24.
