Karnataka High Court
Sri. M.D. Basha vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 May, 2024
-1-
CRL.RP No. 1038 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1038 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. M D BASHA
S/O K AZEEZ SAB
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT SRI DEVI NILAYA
ISLAMPRT, B T GALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 09.07.2014 MADE IN C.C.NO.98/2006 BY
THE COURT OF J.M.F.C II COURT, DAVANAGERE AND THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.06.2015 MADE IN
CRL.APPEAL NO.84/2014 BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.03.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No. 1038 of 2015
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,
being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 09.07.2014 in C.C.No.98/2006 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court),
Davangere and its confirmation judgment and order
dated 26.06.2015 in Crl.A.No.84/2014 on the file of the II
Additional and District and Sessions Judge at Davangere,
seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by
the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12(1)
of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for
short 'Act').
2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be
considered henceforth for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being
the owner of the vehicle bearing its registration No.KA-
17-A-1008 has failed to make quarterly tax for the period
of 01.10.2004 to 01.07.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,05,600/-.
Hence, a complaint came to be registered by P.W.1.
Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional Court issued
summons of taking cognizance and proceeded with the
case.
4. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant
himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked three
documents as Exs.P1 to P3. On the other hand, the
accused got marked 13 documents as Exs.D1 to D13.
5. Heard Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Courts below failed to consider the
defence of the accused that he was not in possession of
the vehicle and he was not liable to pay the tax. In fact,
though the accused produced several documents and got
those documents marked to substantiate his claim, both
the Courts failed to consider those documents which
resulted in passing the impugned judgments.
7. It is further submitted that mere issuance of notice and
demanding the tax is not sufficient to say that the owner
of the vehicle is liable to pay the tax, unless, the
prosecution proves that the accused was in possession of
the vehicle on which the tax was due. Both the Courts
have committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that
the accused was in possession of the vehicle as on the
date of issuance of the demand notice which is contrary
to the evidence on record, therefore, the conviction is
liable to be set aside. Making such submission, the
learned counsel for petitioner prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
justified the concurrent findings and submitted that the
documents which were produced by the accused clearly
indicate that he was in possession of the said vehicle
during the said period and he was liable to pay the tax.
9. It is further submitted that mere contending that he was
not in possession of the said vehicle cannot be absolved
of the liability of payment of tax. The Courts below after
appreciating the documentary and oral evidence on
record, recorded the conviction which is appropriate and
proper. Hence, it is not liable to be interfered with the
said findings. Making such submission, the learned High
Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.
10. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, it is appropriate to refer to Section 12(1) (a) of
the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 which
reads thus:
"12(1)(a) as a registered owner or
otherwise has possession or control of any
motor vehicle liable to tax under this Act
without having paid the amount of the tax
or additional tax due in accordance with
the provisions of this Act in respect of
such vehicle;"
11. On careful reading of the above said provision, an
inference could be drawn that to register a case against
the owner of the vehicle for having not paid the tax, the
authority must establish that the registered owner has in
possession or control of the motor vehicle of which he is
liable to pay the tax.
12. In the present case, the accused got marked several
documents through P.W.1 and those documents have
been marked as Exs.D1 to D13. As per Ex.D1, the
Manager of Co-operative Bank requested not to impose
tax as the said vehicle was sold to one Murugan who is a
resident of Tumkur. Further, an endorsement which is
marked as EX.D4 indicates that the Regional Transport
Officer instructed the Manager of the Co-operative Bank
to submit the documents relating to the theft of the said
vehicle to the office. Pursuant to the said endorsement,
Ex.D5 was submitted to the RTO along with FIR and
private complaint. The said complaint and other relevant
documents have been marked. Even after receipt of the
relevant documents, a demand notice for payment of tax
was issued on 27.10.2005 asking the owner of the vehicle
to pay the tax for the period from 01.10.2004. The said
demand notice is marked as Ex.D13.
13. On perusal of those documents, it can be inferred that
the accused has proved that he was not in possession of
the vehicle since 20.07.2004. When the accused
established that he was not in possession of the said
vehicle, he is not liable to pay the tax even though the RC
book stands in his name.
14. Unless the prosecution proves that the accused has
committed an offence as per Section 12(1)(a) of the Act,
he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section
12(1) of the Act. However, the Courts below have
committed errors in arriving at a conclusion that the
accused is liable to pay the tax for the vehicle which is
not in his possession. Therefore, the conviction recorded
by both the Courts is required to be set aside.
15. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 09.07.2014 passed in
C.C.No.98/2006 by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class (II Court), Davangere and the
judgment and order dated 26.06.2015
passed in Crl.A.No.84/2014 by the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Davangere are set aside.
iii) The petitioner / accused is acquitted for the
offence punishable under Section 12(1) of
the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1957.
iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
UN
