( 1 ) IN this petition by the State the order dt. 23-12-1975 passed by the munsiff and JMFC, Ramadurg, in Crl Misc Case 34 of 1975, is challenged. Crl Misc Case 34 of 1975 was filed by the Asst Commercial Tax Officer under S. 13 (3) (b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, praying that the respondent Shivalingappa having not paid the arrears of sales tax of rs. 1,285-75, the same mav be recovered from him as if it was a fine imposed by the Magistrate. The office of the Magistrate raised two objections in regard to the maintainability of the application. The first obiection was that Court-fee ought to have been paid on the application. The second ob]pcticn was that the application was not maintainable in the Court of the JMFC, as what was requested by the applicant was an order to be parsed in discharge of functions of an Executive Magistrate in an administrative capacity. By the order in question, the learned Magistrate has upheld both the objections. That is challenged in this petition. Sec. 69 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, lays down what documents are exempt from payment of Court-fee. Sri kuranga, learned Govt Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, relied on S. 69 (xiii) and contended that no Court-fee was required to, be paid on the application in question. S. 69 (xiii) reads as follows:" 69. Nothing contained in'this Act shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee- (xiii) complaint of a public servant as defined in the Indian Penal code (Central Act XLV of 1860) or an officer of the State Railway. "in order to apply this provision, it will have to be found that the application in question was a 'complaint' within the meaning of the aforementioned provision. 'complaint' is defined in S. 2 (d) of the Crlpc, as follows :" 'complaint' means any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation. . . . . . . . . . . . "sec. Explanation. . . . . . . . . . . . "sec. 13 (3) (b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act reads as follows :" (3) Any tax assessed, or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer or any other person may without prejudice to any other mode of collection be recovered. . . . . . . (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 (Central Act 5 of 1898), on application to any magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by him. "by the application in question, the Asst Commercial Tax Officer has requested the Magistrate to recover the aforementioned amount as if it were a fine imposd by the Magistrate. The Asst Commercial Tax Officer has not complained to the Magistrate by the application in question about any offence said to have been committed by either a known or unknown person with a view that the. Magistrate should take action. In view of these facts, it cannot be held that the application in question, falls within the meaning of 'complaint' as defined in S. 2 (d), Crlpc. Therefore, S. 69 (xiii) of the Karnataka Court-fee and Suits Valuation Act, cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution. ( 2 ) EVEN then the contention of Sri Kuranga that the first and second proviso to S. 4 of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, would be applicable, and as such, the order passed by the Magistrate in regard to this aspect of the matter is not sustainable, is sound. S. 4 of the Karnataka court-fees and Suits Valuation Act reads as follows :"4. S. 4 of the Karnataka court-fees and Suits Valuation Act reads as follows :"4. No document which is chargeable with fee under this Act shall__ (i) be tiled, exhibited or recorded in, or be acted on or furnished by, any Court including the High Court, or (ii) be filed, exhibited or recorded in any public office, or be acted on or furnished by any public Officer, unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated as chargeable under this Act: provided that, whenever the filing or exhibition in a Criminal Court of a document in respect cf which the proper fee has not been paid is in the opinion of the Court necessary to prevent a failure of justice, nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prohibit such filing or exhibition. Provided further that no fee shall be payable in respect of any document filed, exhibited or recorded by or on behalf of the State govt or any officer of the State Govt in his official capacity, or acted on at the instance of or furnished to the State Govt in his official capacity. " ( 3 ) WHAT can be easily gathered from the first proviso is that even if not court-lee or insufficient Court-fee has been paid on a document filed in a Criminal Court, and if that Court is of opinion that it is necessary to allow filing of such document in order to prevent failure of justice, then the Court has discretion to allow filing of such document. What is laid down by the second proviso makes it abundantly clear that no Court-fee is payable on such application, as the same has been filed on behalf of the state Govt by an Officer of the State Govt, viz, the Asst Commercial Tax officer, in his official caparty. in this view of the matter, the fact that such a document does not fall within the proviso to S. 69 of the Karnataka court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, will not come in the way of filing of the application by the Asst Commercial Tax Officer. The effect of S. 4 of the Court-fees Act has been ignored by the learned Magistrate. The effect of S. 4 of the Court-fees Act has been ignored by the learned Magistrate. ( 4 ) IN regard to the second objection, it is sufficient to notice that S. 13 (3), (b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act lays down that the recovery of sales tax has to be made by the Magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by him, and this is provided by including a non-obstante clause in the proviso, therefore, when the amount is deemed to be a fine imposed by a Magistrate, the reasoning of the lower Court that it was an admimsrative act and only Executive Magistrates are to perform these acts, cannot be considered as sound. ( 5 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The lower court is directed to entertain Criminal Misc Case 34 of 1975 and proceed to dispose of the petition according to law. --- *** --- .