Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Mr K Umesh on 27 October, 2021
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.989 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RTO
UDUPI
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001 ... APPELLANT
[BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, ADVOCATE]
AND:
MR.K.UMESH
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O SHEENA GANIGA
R/O CHIKKU HOUSE
WEST BLOCK ROAD
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 ... RESPONDENT
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)(3) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING (A) TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.12.2019 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.23/2016 ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 12(1) OF INDIA
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.1515/2011.
2
(B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.12.2019
PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.23/2016 ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 12(1) OF
INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
(C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 12(1) OF INDIAN MOTOR VEHICL ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment
and order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Court of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi in Criminal
Appeal No.23/2016, whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed
the said appeal and set aside the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, convicting the
accused/respondent for an offence punishable under Section
12(1)(a) of Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Taxation) Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to KMVT Act for short).
2. There is a delay of 448 days in preferring the appeal.
The office has raised an objection that application for
condonation of delay is not forthcoming.
3. I have heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for appellant/State on merits of the case.
4. The prosecution has alleged that the accused being
the registered owner of the vehicle/maxi cab bearing No.KA-20-
AB-8888 failed to pay the vehicle tax of the said vehicle for the
period from 01.11.2009 to 30.04.2010 amounting to
Rs.1,65,000/- within the time stipulated by law and thereby
committed the offence punishable under Sections 3(1), (4) read
with Section 12(1)(a) of KMVT Act.
5. Before the trail court, the prosecution got examined
the concerned RTO as PW.1 and got marked three documents as
Exs.P1 to P3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 06.02.2016 in
Criminal Case No.1505/2011 convicted the accused and
sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,65,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months.
6. The learned Session judge vide impugned judgment
dated 30.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.23/2016 set
aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed
by the trial Court, which is under challenge by the State.
7. The specific contention taken by the defence is that
merely because the vehicle was standing in the name of accused,
it cannot be said that he is liable to pay the tax. The vehicle was
not under his care and control or possession and it was the
bounden duty on the part of prosecution to establish that an
enquiry has been conducted to show that during the relevant
point of time the vehicle was in possession and control of the
accused as required under Section 12(1)(a) of KMVT.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader has
contended that the accused being the registered owner of the
vehicle in question has admittedly failed to pay the tax for the
period from 01.11.2009 to 30.04.2010 amounting to
Rs.1,65,000/- within the time stipulated by law and inspite of
issuance of notice, no reply was given either stating that he was
not the registered owner of the vehicle or he was not in
possession or control of vehicle. She contends that the burden is
on the owner of the vehicle to establish that he was not in
possession or control of the vehicle or that the vehicle was not in
a fit condition to ply on the road.
9. It is the specific case of prosecution that the accused
being the registered owner of the vehicle and in possession and
control of the vehicle failed to pay the vehicle tax during the
relevant period of time. Section 12(1)(a) and (b) of the KMVT
envisages that whoever, as a registered owner or otherwise has
possession or control of any motor vehicle liable to tax under the
Act, without having paid the amount of tax or additional tax due
in accordance with the provision of the Act, etc., is liable for
conviction.
10. In the case on hand, as admitted by PW.1, he has
not enquired as to whether the vehicle was in a working
condition or not or whether the accused was in possession or
control of the vehicle during the relevant period. The learned
Sessions Judge has taken note of the law laid down in the case of
Vinayak Bhat vs. State by Assistant Regional Transport
Officer reported in ILR 1993 KAR. 176 and Muniswamy Vs.
State by R.T.O reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3032, wherein, it is
held that the R.T.O has to enquire and determine as a question
of fact whether the motor vehicle was in existence during the
relevant period and when there is no enquiry by the R.T.O, the
trial Court was wrong in convicting the accused. Further, that it
is not enough for the prosecution to merely state that the
accused was the registered owner of the vehicle, but, it must
further establish that either as registered owner or otherwise, he
had possession or control over the vehicle in respect of which
there was non-payment of tax. The trial Court has failed to take
into consideration these aspects and therefore the conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law. The
judgment which is impugned in this appeal therefore cannot be
said to be either illegal or perverse. There are no grounds to
grant leave to appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB/-
