S.BARMAN, J. - (1.)THIS Government appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Rairangpur, District Mayurbhanj, acquitting the accused respondent herein of the charge of alleged refusal to give inspection and causing obstruction to search, punishable under Section 25 (f) and (h) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, in the circumstances hereinafter stated.
(2.)THE prosecution case, shortly stated, was that : On June 13, 1959 the Assistant Sales Tax Officer (P. W. 1) went to the shop of the accused respondent, disclosed his identity and wanted to have an inspection of the bosks of account and it is said that the Officer found certain blank books which he did not seize; then the said officer asked the accused respondent to open two drawers of an almirah and demanded production of what was described as Ucchanti Khata (Jot note book); the accused respondent however, refused to comply with the officer's demand and did not open the almirah or the drawers; thereupon the officer asked the accused to comply with the law and cautioned him as to the consequences of his not complying with his request for inspection and search; the accused still refused and thereby he is said to have caused obstruction to the Assistant Sales Tax Officer in the matter of inspection, search and seizure; thereupon the officer took down the statement of the accused which is marked Ext. 1 and 1/1 which was signed by the accused; there was no attesting witness to the statement. Immediately thereafter, another statement was taken from the accused which is marked Ext. 2 and 2/1 which also the accused signed; the second statement, namely, Ext. 2 does, however, bear the signature of two witnesses, namely one Madanlal Agarwalla and Hiralal Agarwalla. Thereafter the Assistant Sales Tax Officer reported to his immediate superior the Commercial Tax Officer who, in his turn, forwarded a report to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, and got the sanction of the Commissioner for prosecution of the accused respondent.
At the trial, before the Magistrate, the prosecution called three witnesses including the Assistant Sales Tax Officer as P. W. 1, his clerk who accompanied the said Officer as P. W. 2 and the Commercial Tax Officer as P. W. 3 a formal witness, who had procured the sanction of the Commissioner for prosecution of the accused respondent. The documents, relied on in support of the prosecution, are Exts. 1 and 2 being the said statements signed by the accused as aforesaid. There is also a document, namely, an anonymous letter which is marked 'X' on the basis of which the Assistant Sales Tax Officer had gone to the premises of the accused for inspection, search and seizure as aforesaid. On behalf of the accused respondent, only one witness was called namely, one Ram Chandra Patnaik, a cultivator, who is stated to be a mere chance witness.

(3.)THE learned Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence adduced before him, found that the Uchhanti khata was not demanded by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer as the prosecution case is the learned Magistrate drew adverse inference from the fact that the said two attesting witnesses to the accused respondent's statement (Ext. 2) were not examined on behalf of the prosecution; further that in any event the statements of the accused are not admissible, in evidence by virtue of the provisions of Section 24 of the Evidence Act because the statements were treated as a confession made by the accused; on merits, on the question - whether the facts, as stated in the prosecution report, amounted to refusal to comply with the request of the Tax Officer or obstruction to making an inspection, search or seizure as contemplated under Section 25 (f) and (h) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the learned Magistrate, by referring to certain inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as fully discussed in his judgment, came to the conclusion that the accused did not refused to comply with any requirement made of him as alleged nor did he cause any obstruction as alleged and accordingly the learned Magistrate gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the charge.