Judgment HIDAYATULLAH,, J. ( 1 ) THESE are two appeals against the judgment of the High court of Judicature at Madras convicting the two appellants under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing the sentence of Herons imprisonment for three months. The appellant in Criminal appeal No. 150 of 1963 has also been convicted under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and a sentence of a like term of imprisonment has been imposed on him but the two sentences in his case are to run concurrently. The appellants now appeal by special leave granted by this court. The facts of the case are as follows : On 6/01/1961, at about 10-30 in the morning the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Salem (P. W. 1) in the company of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Salem (P. W. 2) and certain other staff made a surprise visit to the business premines of Messrs Vasantha Rice Mill situated at Salem to inspect the account and to check the stocks of foodgrains. The mill belonged to Krishna Chettiar, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1963. Rarnamurthy, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1963, is the accountant of the mill. The mill consists of office premises and godowns and there is also a threshing-floor. Further beyond the godowns is another building which, in the case, is called the old sago factory building. When the officer of the Sales Tax Department arrived at the factory Krishna Chettiar agreed to produce the accounts and the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and the peons proceeded to the sago factory building to take stock of the foraging lying in stock. At the sago factory building, the peons found Ramamurthy putting some account books in a gunny bag and trying to run away by the back door of the factory. Seeing this, the two Commercial Tax Officers gave chase and the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer carried the gunny bag and proceeded to the main office in. order to examine the books, when Krishna Chettiar came near the sago factory building and attempted to snatch it from him. It is the prosecution case that to do this, Krishna Chettiar had to hit the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on his left hand to weaken his grip on the gunny bag. order to examine the books, when Krishna Chettiar came near the sago factory building and attempted to snatch it from him. It is the prosecution case that to do this, Krishna Chettiar had to hit the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on his left hand to weaken his grip on the gunny bag. As even this did not make the two Commercial Tax Officers to let go to the gunny bag, Krishna Chettiar called for help from the men from the threshing-floor and with the assistance of Ramamurthy and others, he succeeded in snatching the gunny bag containing the account books and handed them over to Ramamurthy, who ran away with them. The prosecution case is that the two Commercial Tax Officers were pushed against the wall by Krishna Chettiar. The Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer sustained some abrasions on his left hand and the watch strap of one of the peons was broken. It is in evidence that these account books were never found again. ( 2 ) ON these facts prosecution was launched against Krishna Chettiar and Ramamurthy under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. Krishna Chettiar was further charged under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code as already mentioned. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Salem, who tried the case, acquitted the accused under section 251a (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An appeal was taken to the High court by the State government under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This resulted in the reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the two appellants before us as has been stated earlier. It may be mentioned here that along with these two appellants, there were two other accused in the case who were also tried under section 186, Indian Penal Code, and similarly acquitted by the trial court, but were convicted by the High court, on appeal. Of these, only three appealed but the third appellant Natesan by name, has not pressed his appeal and we are thus left with Krishna Chettiar and Ramamurthy only. ( 3 ) THE Additional First Class Magistrate, Salem, recorded an acquittal giving many reasons of fact and law. Of these, only three appealed but the third appellant Natesan by name, has not pressed his appeal and we are thus left with Krishna Chettiar and Ramamurthy only. ( 3 ) THE Additional First Class Magistrate, Salem, recorded an acquittal giving many reasons of fact and law. His main reason, however, was that the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had admitted in the witness-box that he had not entertained any suspicion of evasion of tax by Krishna Chettiar and that he had not recorded his reasons in writing for conducting the search as required by section 41 (3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with section 165 of the Code of Criminal : Procedure. He accordingly held that both the search and the seizure of the ; account books were illegal. Following a decision of this court reported in State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that no conviction could be recorded, because the appellants were entitled to resist an illegal search. Other reasons on the ground of fact were also given, but with those, we do not wish to concern ourselves in these appeals. ( 4 ) THE High court on appeal came to a contrary conclusion. It set aside the acquittal recorded by the Magistrate, because in its opinion, the failure to record reasons under section 41 (3) did not in any way affect the authority of the officer to seize the documents and, in any event, as the officer was acting in good faith, there was no right of private defence under section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. Disagreeing also on facts with the Magistrate, the High court reached the conclusion that the acquittal was improper and set it aside and convicted the appellants as stated already. In these appeals, Mr. Ramamurthy has again raised the question of the validity of the search as well as the validity of the seizure of the account books and has contended that the appellants were within their rights in resisting both. He also submitted that this was the first offence of these persons and as they have already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence which had been imposed on them, in the event of our dismissal of the appeals, we may treat the sentence already undergone by them as the sentence imposed upon them. He also submitted that this was the first offence of these persons and as they have already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence which had been imposed on them, in the event of our dismissal of the appeals, we may treat the sentence already undergone by them as the sentence imposed upon them. We shall deal with these two matters in these appeals. ( 5 ) THE powers of inspection, search and seizure are contained in S. 41 and 45 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Under section 41 (1) of the Act, any officer empowered by the government in that behalf may require any dealer to produce before him the accounts, registers and other documents and to furnish any other information relating to the dealers business. Under the second Ss. of that section, it is provided that. all accounts, registers and other documents maintained by a dealer in the course of his business, the goods in his possession and his offices, shops, godowns, vessels or vehicles shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by such officer. A proviso to Ss. (2) says that no residential accommodation shall be entered except on a search warrant issued by a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area and all searches under the Ss. shall, as far as may be, be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The third Ss. then provides that if any officer has reason to suspect that any dealer is attempting to evade the payment of any tax, fee or other amount due from him under the Act, the officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, registers or other documents of the dealer as the officer may consider necessary. Then the section goes on to provide what is to be done in regard to the books so seized in the way of giving of receipts, etc. with which we are not concerned. ( 6 ) IT is to be noticed that the section provides for three distinct matters : inspection of account books, etc. , search and seizure of account books etc. In so far as inspection of account books, registers and other documents is concerned, Ss. (2) itself provides that they shall always be open for scrutiny by such officer at all reasonable times. , search and seizure of account books etc. In so far as inspection of account books, registers and other documents is concerned, Ss. (2) itself provides that they shall always be open for scrutiny by such officer at all reasonable times. The provision for search is in the proviso, where residential accommodation has to be entered or any property has to be searched. The third Ss. deals with the search, then as required under section 165, which is applicable, the reasons for the search have to be recorded in writing before the search is carried out. But this condition does not obtain when the officer only wishes to inspect the accounts, registers or other documents under the first and the second Ss. of section 41. There is no requirement of recording of reasons at that stage, because all that the officer has to do is to go and ask the dealer to produce his account books for his inspection. This is exactly what has happened in this case. The two officers of the Commercial Tax Department went to the premises of the mill and asked to see the account books and to check the stocks and Krishna Chettiar readily agreed. There was no question at that stage of any search of any premises which would attract the provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the case on which the learned Magistrate relied. The present case involved only an inspection of the accounts and registers under the first and second Ss. and therefore the officers were well within their rights in seeking that inspection without proceeding to record reasons in writing. It was only when Ramamurthy was seen running away with the account books that the third Ss. came into play. Then the first action to be taken was to get hold of the account books. As the learned Judge in the High court has rightly said, it was not to be expected that the tax officers would sit down to record their reasons in writing while Ramamurthy made away with the books. They had first to get hold of the books and could record their reasons in writing later when the actual seizure was to be made. They had first to get hold of the books and could record their reasons in writing later when the actual seizure was to be made. When the account books never came into the possession of the Sales Tax Officers because they were taken away from them and removed, no question of recording of reasons in the case at all arose. The High court was thus right in thinking that the matter did not reach the stage of recording of reasons in writing and that there was no flaw in the conduct of the inspection of the record or of the seizure of the account books. As a matter of fact the offence was perpetrated before even the account books could be seized under Ss. (3) of section 41. These officers were undoubtedly purporting to act under the colour of their office and there was no right of private defence under section 99 of the Indian Penal Code. It may also be pointed out that a clear enough case could have been made out against the appellants under clause (a) of the third Ss. of section 45 which says that any person who prevents or obstructs inspection, entry, search or seizure by an officer empowered under section 41, shall on conviction be liable to simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or both. It is obvious that if I the two appellants had been charged under this section, there would have been an unanswerable case in law against them. They were not however charged under this section. Taking these matters into account, we think that we should not interfere with the conviction of the appellants which has been properly reached in this case. ( 7 ) AS regards sentence, we think that the appellants have now probably learnt a lesson that authority of law is not to be easily flouted. They have been in jail for nearly a month; but as the remainder of the sentence is a short one, it is not necessary to send them back to jail to serve out the remaining portion of their sentence. We accordingly treat the sentence already undergone by them as the sentence imposed on them for the offence and order accordingly. Subject to this modification, the appeals fail and are dismissed.