Judgment :- The above criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the entire records in C.C.No.317 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and quash the same. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed a complaint before the Court below as against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 24(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on allegation that the petitioner, who is a dealer in Selvam Traders at Dharmapuri was finally assessed for the years 1992-93 to 1994-95 and a balance of tax of Rs.1,34,83,052/- is due from the petitioner and the demand notices in Form B3 were issued and served on the petitioner on 31.3.1998, 21.4.1999 and 3.5.2000 and in spite of repeated demands, the petitioner has not paid the amount and hence would pray that the arrears realised under Section 24(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act may be treated as if it were a fine imposed by the learned Magistrate. 3. When the said complaint is pending trial, the petitioner/accused has come forward to file the above criminal original petition on averments such as that he is a dealer for dealing with the paddy and rice under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act; that since he could not continue the said business, he got employment in a private company at Tiruppur under one K.Nandakumar, Uthukuli; that thereafter he was running a music recording shop at Uthukuli for some time; that he had not been conducting any business in paddy and rice during the relevant assessment years viz. 1992-93 to 1994-95. 4. 1992-93 to 1994-95. 4. The petitioner would further submit that it appears that the said Nandakumar used the registration number of the petitioner to effect second sale of oil cakes and claimed exemption of tax, but, however, the respondent passed the assessment orders in the name of the petitioner holding that the purchaser was not dealing with the oil cakes but was found to be a manufacturer of bolts and nuts and concluded that the petitioner was liable to pay the sales tax, without appreciating the facts in their proper perspective as required under law; that he has given a statement to the respondent on 10.3.2001 to the effect that he had not dealt with any sale of oil cakes at the relevant point of time and that his dealership registration number might have been misused by the said Nandakumar; that he learnt that the respondent authorities have levied tax against the said Nandakumar also. 5. The petitioner would further submit that under Sections 28 and 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Judicial Magistrate is empowered to impose a punishment of three years imprisonment and levy a fine of Rs.5,000/- only and since as per Sec.24(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the sales tax authorities can move the criminal court to recover the sales tax due as if the amount of tax due is a penalty, the lodging of prosecution before the Court below is wholly without jurisdiction since the amount sought to be recovered is excess and beyond the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate in terms of Sections 28 and 29 of Cr.P.C.; that one year period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. has been prescribed for lodging prosecution in a case. 6. During argument learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would only reiterate the same pleadings as it has been broughtforth in the petition with no new facts or circumstances alleged nor any law being broughtforth and therefore tracing the said argument is only a wasteful exercise. 6. During argument learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would only reiterate the same pleadings as it has been broughtforth in the petition with no new facts or circumstances alleged nor any law being broughtforth and therefore tracing the said argument is only a wasteful exercise. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State, would submit that the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959 is a Special Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure is a General Act and the provisions of the Special Act have the overriding effect on the other general laws and therefore citing either Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein the limitation is prescribed or Sections 28 or 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the petitioner cannot escape the clutches of law and therefore would seek to dismiss the above Crl.O.P. 7. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate contra, what comes to be known is that a case has been registered by the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 24(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959, against the petitioner who is a dealer and for the tax assessed for the years 1992-93 to 1994-95 of Rs.1,34,83,052/- has been found due from the petitioner and having issued a demand notice in Form-B3 served on the petitioner on 31.3.98, 24.4.99 and 3.5.2000 and inspite of such demand made since the amount has not been paid they have resorted to initiate action under Section 24(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, treating the same as it were a fine imposed on the trader by the Magistrate. Since the action is initiated under Section 24(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Sales Act, it has become relevant to extract Section 24(2)(b). "24. Since the action is initiated under Section 24(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Sales Act, it has become relevant to extract Section 24(2)(b). "24. Payment and recovery of tax.– (1) Save as otherwise provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 13, the tax assessed or has become payable under this Act from a dealer or person and any other amount due from him under this Act shall be paid in such manner and in such instalments, if any, and within such time as may be specified in the notice of assessment, not being less than twenty-one days from the date of service of the notice. The tax under sub-Section (2) of Section 13 be paid without any notice of demand. In default of such payment the whole of the amount outstanding on the date of default shall become immediately due and shall be a charge on the properties of the person or persons liable to pay the tax or interest under this act. (2) any tax assessed on or has become payable by, or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer or person and any fee due form him under this act, shall, subject to the claim of he Government in respect of land revenue and the claim of the land Development bank in regard to the property mortgaged to it under section 28(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Land Development banks act, 1934 (Tamil Nadu act X of 1934) have priority over all other claims against the property of the said dealer or person and the same may without prejudice to any other mode of collection be recovered, (a) as land revenue, or (b) on application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate as if it were a find imposed by him:" 8. From the extraction of the above Section, it is clear that this law, that Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959 which is a Special Act authorises the Magistrate to have priority over all other claims against the property of the dealer who is in default and without prejudice to other mode of collection, the same could be recovered (a) as land revenue or (b) as it were a fine imposed by him. While such being the declared powers of the Magistrate regarding the amount of fine that could be imposed, there is no point in the petitioner loitering too much about showing either Section 28 or Section 29 of the Code of Criminal procedure., further stating that the Magistrate therein is empowered to imposed a punishment of only three years imprisonment and to levy a fine of Rs.5,000/- which is applicable only in other cases and not regarding the cases arising out of any Special Act wherein the provisions of the Special Act will only prevail over and above the provisions of either the General Act or any other law for the time being in force and therefore either regarding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate or regarding the limitation, the petitioner cannot point out the general provision and escape from the clutches of law. 9. In short the petitioner is bound by the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959 and the respondent has aptly registered the case under the appropriate provision of law and therefore this Court does not find any tangible reason to cause its interference into the said case registered in C.C.no.317 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and hence the following order 10. In result, There is absolutely no merit in the above criminal original petition and the same fails and dismissed as such.