Case Analysis: Hazari Lal vs State of Bihar
Case Details
Case name: Hazari Lal vs State of Bihar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: MUDHOLKAR, J.
Date of decision: 27 September 1962
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeals Nos. 35 and 36 of 1961; Cr. Revisions Nos. 812 of 1960; Cr. Revisions Nos. 76 of 1959; Crl. Revision No. 824 of 1960
Proceeding type: Appeal by special leave
Source court or forum: Patna High Court
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
On the evening of 29 October 1957 the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Mr Bhupendra Narain Singh, entered the shop of Hazari Lall & Co. in Barah town to inspect the account books kept there under the authority granted by the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 and Rule 50. While inside the shop the officer picked up two sets of account books that were lying on a table and began to examine them. Hazari Lall, who was present, seized the books from the officer’s hands, handed them to one of his servants, and caused them to be passed to another servant on the upper floor. The officer instructed his orderly peon to retrieve the books, but the appellant prevented the peon from reaching the place where the books had been taken. In the ensuing scuffle the peon’s shirt was torn.
After the incident the officer lodged a written report with the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, who forwarded it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A First Information Report was registered on 1 November 1957. The appellant was produced before the Sub‑Inspector, tendered a written apology, and was subsequently charged, tried and convicted under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 812 of 1960 and 76 of 1959. By special leave, the appellant filed Criminal Appeals Nos. 35 and 36 of 1961 before the Supreme Court of India, seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was called upon to determine (i) whether the appellant’s act of snatching the books constituted “force” within the meaning of section 349 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) whether such force satisfied the requirements of section 353 IPC, namely intentional use of force without consent and knowledge that it would cause injury, fear or annoyance; (iii) whether the appellant could rely on the alleged illegality of the officer’s possession of the books under section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act to justify his resistance; and (iv) whether the prosecution under section 353 IPC was colourable, intended to avoid the sanction requirement of section 26(1)(h) of the Sales Tax Act.
The appellant contended that (a) the snatching of inanimate books did not amount to “force” against a person; (b) no intention to cause injury, fear or annoyance existed because his purpose was merely to protect his property; (c) the officer’s inspection was unlawful because the seizure of the books required a written statement of reasons under sub‑section (3) of section 17, which was absent; (d) consequently, the only offence that could be imputed was obstruction under section 26(1)(h), which required prior sanction of the Commissioner; and (e) the charge under section 353 IPC was therefore colourable.
The State argued that (a) the officer was lawfully empowered to inspect the books, making his possession lawful; (b) the act of snatching necessarily caused a motion to the officer’s hand, satisfying the definition of “force” in section 349; (c) the force was employed intentionally, without consent and with knowledge that it would annoy the officer, thereby fulfilling section 353; (d) the obstruction of a public officer was punishable under section 26(1)(h); and (e) prosecution under the general provision of section 353 IPC did not require the Commissioner’s sanction and was not colourable.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
Section 349 IPC defined “force” as causing motion, change of motion or cessation of motion to another person or to any substance in contact with that person. Section 350 IPC required that such force be used with the intention of causing injury, fear or annoyance, thereby constituting “criminal force.” Section 353 IPC prescribed punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by criminal force to any person.
Section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 empowered the Commissioner and his delegates to inspect accounts, registers and documents of any dealer at reasonable times and to make surprise visits. Rule 50 authorized such surprise inspections. Section 26(1)(h) of the Act made it an offence to obstruct a tax officer in the performance of his duties, while Section 26(2) required prior sanction of the Commissioner before a court could take cognizance of an offence under that provision.
The legal test applied by the Court required (i) proof that the accused caused a motion to the officer’s hand or body; (ii) proof that the force was used intentionally, without consent and with knowledge that it would cause annoyance, fear or injury; and (iii) verification that the officer’s possession of the object was lawful under the relevant tax statutes.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court first examined the definition of “force” in section 349 IPC and held that a person uses force when he causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion to another. By snatching the books from the officer’s grasp, the appellant necessarily caused a jerk to the officer’s hand; this satisfied the statutory description of force.
Having established the existence of force, the Court turned to section 353 IPC. It observed that the force was employed intentionally, without the officer’s consent, and that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would inevitably feel annoyed by the sudden removal of the books. Accordingly, the Court found that the appellant’s conduct fulfilled the mens rea and actus reus required by section 353.
The Court then considered the statutory authority of the tax officer. It held that section 17 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act and Rule 50 validly empowered the officer to make a surprise inspection and to take possession of the books for that purpose. Consequently, the appellant had no legal justification to resist or to seize the books.
Addressing the contention that the prosecution was colourable, the Court noted that section 353 IPC does not require prior sanction of the Commissioner. The choice to prosecute under the more serious general provision was therefore permissible and not colourable, even though the obstruction also attracted liability under section 26(1)(h).
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that no “injury, fear or annoyance” was caused, emphasizing that annoyance was an inherent consequence of the forced removal of the books. It also rejected the claim that the officer’s taking of the books amounted to an illegal seizure, finding that the statutory provisions expressly authorized such inspection.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed both Criminal Appeals Nos. 35 and 36 of 1961, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on Hazari Lall under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court affirmed that the appellant’s act of snatching the account books constituted the use of criminal force as defined in section 349 IPC, that the force was employed intentionally and without consent, and that the officer’s possession of the books was lawful. Consequently, the appellant’s arguments invoking lack of force, absence of annoyance, and procedural irregularities were rejected, and the judgment of the Patna High Court was affirmed.