Karnataka High Court
Sri Anwar Sadiq vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3345
CRL.RP No. 1475 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1475 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ANWAR SADIQ
S/O AHMED BHAVA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O FISHH MILL
DARGA ROAD, MUKKA
MANGALORE-574 146.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED MONISH SOWKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE
MANGALORE
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M REPRESENTED BY THE
Location: HIGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
COURT OF BANGALORE-560 001.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE IN CRL.A.51/2023 DATED
31/08/2024 (ANN-A) AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
PASSED BY THE JMFC (II COURT) MANGALORE, IN CC
NO.2534/2018 DATED 30/01/2023 (ANN-B).
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3345
CRL.RP No. 1475 of 2024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-
State.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the Regional
Transport Office, Mangalore is that the accused/revision
petitioner failed to pay the tax amount due on his registered
vehicle as required under Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) and he is liable
for punishment under Section 12 of the Act.
3. The Trial Court considered the material on record,
particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents of
Exs.P1 and P2 i.e., 'B' Register Extract and show cause notice
respectively which was served on him, also taken note of the
signature of RTO Inspector which is marked as Ex.P2(a) and
also ration card and Aadhar card of the accused which are
produced as Exs.P3 and P4. The respondent-accused examined
himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D6.
NC: 2025:KHC:3345
4. The Trial Court having considered the material on
record, comes to the conclusion that though defence was taken
that he was not the owner of the vehicle, taken note that notice
was served long back and he did not give any reply to the
notice. The accused contends that someone had registered the
vehicle in his name and in order to rebut the same, except
producing the documents at Exs.D1 to D6 i.e., complaint given
to Surathkal Police Station, postal receipt, postal
acknowledgement, complaint, postal receipt and copy of the
post letter, nothing is placed on record. It is also observed that
complaint was sent through registered post on December, 2018
and no document is produced to show that what was the
further steps taken by him, except complaint through post and
hence, not accepted the case of the petitioner and directed the
petitioner to pay fine of Rs.67,133/- within 90 days, but not
imposed any sentence.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed
before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also
taking note of specific argument before the First Appellate
Court, particularly in paragraph No.14, taken note of the fact
that, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has
NC: 2025:KHC:3345
personally not went to the police station and also he is not
remembering whether they have given acknowledgment of the
complaint and also taken note of the fact that notice was given
on 11.01.2018 to pay the tax and complaint was registered
after more than 11 months. Hence, did not believe the
contention of the petitioner and P.W.1 clearly admits the
vehicle clearance certificate, address proof, fitness certificate
RC and insurance policy and photos are obtained by him and
there is no hurdles in producing the same before the Court and
taking note of material, particularly Ex.P1- 'B' Register extract,
which discloses the name of this petitioner and that too, vehicle
was registered in the year 2005 and notice was given in 2018
and having considered all these material, confirmed the
Judgment of the Trial Court.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that an opportunity has to be given to the
petitioner to produce the documents and even though in the
cross-examination of P.W.1-RTO Inspector elicited answer with
regard to the production of the documents, but the fact that
vehicle stands in the name of the accused is not in dispute,
NC: 2025:KHC:3345
since 'B' Register Extract is produced before the Trial Court and
also contend that an opportunity has to be given.
7. Having perused the order sheet which is placed
before the Court, it clearly discloses that the accused appeared
before the Trial Court in 2019 itself and case was disposed of in
2023 and the contention that no opportunity is given cannot be
accepted, when P.W.1 was examined and thereafter, an
application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and the same
was rejected and even after rejection of the same also, an
opportunity to address the argument was given and heard the
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
thereafter disposed of the matter. Apart from that, even
though opportunity was given to lead defence evidence, he
examined himself as D.W.1, but not placed any documents
before the Court. Hence, the very contention that not given
opportunity cannot be accepted.
8. Having considered the order sheet placed before
the Court and the sentence imposed is only fine and the said
fine is also not paid, I do not find any ground to admit the
petition. This Court also comes to the conclusion that there is
NC: 2025:KHC:3345
no need to pass any orders on I.A. and fine is imposed, the
question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise and
material also placed on record is very clear that notice was
issued and he did not give any reply and instead, in an
ingenious method, lodged the complaint after 11 months of
having acknowledged notice and vehicle was standing in the
name of the petitioner from 2005 till issuance of notice. Hence,
the contention that the respondent was not the owner cannot
be accepted, unless he places any material before the Court.
Therefore, not a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
