Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: S.V. Kishta Pillai

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 23, 1949
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/789947

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. No. 1328 and Cri. Revn. Petn. No. 1258 of 1948
Subject
Criminal;Sales Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - This is not like a continuing trespass, a fresh offence every day.

Key legal issue
Criminal;Sales Tax
Acts & sections
Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Sections 15; Madras General Sales Tax Act (Amendment), 1947; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 403

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: S.V. Kishta Pillai

Advocate M. Chockalingam, Adv.

Respondent

Advocate N.T. Raghunathan for Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Sections 15; Madras General Sales Tax Act (Amendment), 1947; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 403
Reported In
AIR1950Mad389

Excerpt

- - this is not like a continuing trespass, a fresh offence every day.orderpanchapakesa aiyar, j.1. the petitioner here was already once convicted and fined for not paying the assessment fixed for 1946-47. i do not think that the lower court was justified in law or in equity in convicting him over again for not having paid that very assessment in full. the learned public prosecutor cannot say why the principle of 'autrefois acquit' should not be applied here and the petitioner acquitted. this is not like a continuing trespass, a fresh offence every day. though the old section (section 15, madras general sales tax act of 1939) prescribed an added penalty of rs. 50 a day, for continued breach, over the maximum fine of rs. 1000 for a breach, even that section did not say that a new prosecution can be launched every day and that a fresh fine upto rs. 1000 and a penalty of rs. 50 per day for every day of non-payment after the due date can be imposed. the new section (as amended by madras act xxv [25] of 1947) does not contain that provision at all. so, i set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, acquit him in this case, and direct the fine, if paid, to be refunded to him. the tax will, of course, be collected under the old conviction.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.

1. The petitioner here was already once convicted and fined for not paying the assessment fixed for 1946-47. I do not think that the lower Court was justified in law or in equity in convicting him over again for not having paid that very assessment in full. The learned Public Prosecutor cannot say why the principle of 'autrefois acquit' should not be applied here and the petitioner acquitted. This is not like a continuing trespass, a fresh offence every day. Though the old section (Section 15, Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939) prescribed an added penalty of Rs. 50 a day, for continued breach, over the maximum fine of Rs. 1000 for a breach, even that section did not say that a new prosecution can be launched every day and that a fresh fine upto Rs. 1000 and a penalty of Rs. 50 per day for every day of non-payment after the due date can be imposed. The new section (as amended by Madras Act XXV [25] of 1947) does not contain that provision at all. So, I set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, acquit him in this case, and direct the fine, if paid, to be refunded to him. The tax will, of course, be collected under the old conviction.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial