Karnataka High Court
Shri. Shamsundar Vasudev Kamat vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
CRL.RP No. 2251 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 2251 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHAMSUNDAR VASUDEV KAMAT,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
H. NO.31, PANVELIM, PANJIM, GOA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.L.VANTI, AMICUS CURIAE.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RTO, BELAGAVI,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
Digitally signed by
SUJATA SUBHASH
PAMMAR SECTION 397 & 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/08/2011, PASSED BY
DHARWAD.
THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.76/2010 AND THE ORDER DATED 24/04/2010, PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE F.C. II COURT, BELAGAVI, IN
C.C.NO.886/2004 AND DIRECT THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED
FOR THE OFFENCES ALLEGED AND CHARGED AGAINST HIM UNDER
SECTION 3(1), 4(1) AND 12(1)(A) OF THE KARNATAKA MOTOR
VEHICLES TAXATION ACT 1957, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 2251 of 2011
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under section 397 and 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
JMFC, II Court, Belagavi, in C.C.No.886/2004 and confirmed
in Crl.A.No.76/2010, by the II Addl. Sessions Judge,
Belagavi, pertaining to the offences punishable under section
3(1), 4(1) and 12(1)(A) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle
Taxation Act, 1957.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that the accused-revision petitioner was registered owner of
the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/A-3222 and he has
failed to pay tax for a period from 01.02.2002 to 31.08.2004
in spite of issuance of number of demand notices. Hence it is
alleged that he was required to pay tax of Rs.88,900/- under
section 3(1) and 4(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle
Taxation Act and thereby he was prosecuted.
3. After submission of the charge sheet, summons
have been issued to the accused and he has appeared and
CRL.RP No. 2251 of 2011
was enlarged on bail. He was furnished with the prosecution
papers. The accusation was read over and explained to him
and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter the complainant RTO
was examined as PW.1 and exhibits P.1 to P.5 were marked.
4. After the completion of evidence of the
prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded and he was explained with the
incriminating materials appearing against him. The case of
the accused is of total denial. However, he did not choose to
lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his
contention.
5. After hearing the arguments and after perusing
the records, the Trial Court convicted the accused/revision
petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sections
3(1), 4(1) read with Section 12(1) (A) of Karnataka Motor
Vehicle Taxation Act, 1957 and sentenced him to pay a fine
of Rs.1,77,800/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one month. Being aggrieved by this judgment
of conviction and order of sentence, the accused/revision
petitioner approached the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge,
CRL.RP No. 2251 of 2011
Belagavi in Crl.A.No.76/2010. Learned Sessions Judge
dismissed the appeal vide order dated 04.08.2011 by
confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner is before
this Court.
6. Initially, the petitioner was represented by the
counsel. Later on the counsel has filed a retirement memo
and Amicus Curiae was appointed.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and learned H.C.G.P. for
respondent-State. Perused the records.
8. Having heard the arguments and on perusing the
records, it is not under serious dispute that the
petitioner/accused was the owner of the vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-22/A-3222. He was supposed to pay tax
from 01.02.2002 to 31.08.2004 and in spite of issuance of
demand notice, he has not paid the same. The main
contention of the petitioner/accused is that the financier has
seized the vehicle and he was not in the possession of the
CRL.RP No. 2251 of 2011
vehicle during the relevant period and hence, disputed his
liability to pay the tax. However, it is evident that against
the order of RTO, Belagavi, regarding tax, he has
approached the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal, which
came to be dismissed. His appeal also came to be rejected
by Sessions Court and he had filed W.P.No.26005/2005 (T-
MVT) wherein this Court relying on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court held that though the financier
has possessed the vehicle, the liability of the registered
owner is not absolved and hence, it is observed that the
present accused/revision petitioner is liable to pay the tax as
demanded by the transport authority. This finding is not at
all challenged by the revision petitioner by way of filing writ
appeal and it has reached finality. When this Court has
already fastened the liability on the revision petitioner to pay
the tax, now again he cannot take a similar defence that he
was not liable to pay as he was not possessing the vehicle
during the relevant time. Admittedly, the vehicle was
registered in the name of the petitioner and he was the
owner. He has not issued any intimation of non-use of
CRL.RP No. 2251 of 2011
vehicle during the relevant period and in such circumstances,
he is liable to pay the tax.
9. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would
contend that some remission may be given in the fine
amount imposed. But it is required to be noted here that the
revision petitioner though engaged the advocate but he
retired later on. Thereafter, petitioner did not appear inspite
of issuance of notice and an Amicus Curiae came to be
appointed. The State is required to bear the fees of Amicus
Curiae and again the accused/revision petitioner cannot be
given a free hand by letting him on remission. Under these
circumstances, the said submission of the learned Amicus
Curiae in this regard is not acceptable. There is no merit in
the revision petition and the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by
the first Appellate Court are well reasoned and do not call for
any interference. Hence, the revision petition being devoid
of any merits, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly
I proceed to pass the following:
CRL.RP No. 2251 of 2011
ORDER
The revision petition stands dismissed confirming the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.04.2010 passed by JMFC, II Court, Belagavi, in
C.C.No.886/2004 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.76/2010 by the
II Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi vide order dated
04.08.2011.
Fees of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Send back the TCRs to Trial Court along with a copy of
this order for compliance and recovery of fine.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRK, NAA
