Karnataka High Court
P Ramappa S/O Parisha Bhovi vs State Of Karnataka on 11 October, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 2476/2010
Between:
P. Ramappa
S/o. Parisha Bhovi,
Age. 67 years,
Occ. Business,
R/o. Madhav Colony,
Shanti Nagar,
Keshwapur, Hubli.
...Petitioner
(By Smt. Seema Shiva Naik, Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka
By Regional Transport Officer,
By State Public Prosecutor.
...Respondent
(By Sri V.M. Banakar, Additional State Public
Prosecutor)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with section 401 of Code of
2
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to set aside the
judgment and sentence dated 12.06.2009 passed by
J.M.F.C. I Court, Hubli in C.C. No.2362/2005
confirmed in Crl.A. No. 66/2009 by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at
Dharwad, by his order dated 27.08.2010 and acquit
the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.
This revision petition coming on for hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
2. The petitioner was accused of offences punishable under Sections 3-A and 4 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 read with Section 12(1) thereof. The petitioner having been convicted and having been directed to pay Rs.80,000/- towards tax and a fine of Rs.5,000/- had challenged the same in appeal before the Appellate Court and the appeal having been dismissed the present petition is filed. 3
3. It was the case of the prosecution that the petitioner being the registered owner and in possession and control of a vehicle bearing No.KA 25/1450 was required to pay tax in advance for a period from 01.05.1987 to 30.01.2005 amounting to Rs.83,000/- and that he had failed to pay the tax. He was accordingly prosecuted. The trial Court had framed the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the impugned judgment is sustainable in law?
2. What Order?
4. The Court had answered the same in the affirmative. In appeal, the Appellate Court rejected the appeal while holding that it was not in dispute the appellant was the registered owner of the goods vehicle aforesaid and that inspite of demand he had failed to pay the tax. The claim advanced that the 4 vehicle had been scrapped, and therefore, did not attract any Motor Vehicle Tax could not be accepted for five reasons. Firstly, the Appellate Court has held that the petitioner seeking to claim that the vehicle had met with an accident and the same resulting in damage to the vehicle to such a degree that it was rendered irreparable and was only of scrap value was not evidenced by any document pertaining to the accident.
Secondly, it was contended that the petitioner had reported the matter to the financier, who had financed the loan in purchasing the vehicle and the said financier being a statutory body it was always possible for the petitioner to produce documents to establish that there was correspondence as regards the vehicle being scrapped as between financier and the petitioner which was not forthcoming. 5
Thirdly, there were no particulars of the accident in respect of the vehicle and that the vehicle had been scrapped was also not evidenced by any document and most importantly the liability to pay tax would cease only if proper procedure prescribed in law was complied with and there was no indication of the requisite procedure being followed in the Transport Authorities being informed of the vehicle being scrapped, the Court below has held that the petitioner had no case. It is in this background that the present petition is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as a last ditch effort has filed an application before this Court under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) supported by a memorandum of facts to produce two documents one dated 24.03.2010, wherein the Karnataka State Financial Corporation 6 has endorsed that it had financed the purchase of the vehicle in question and that the vehicle was lying in the premises of Kashmiri Garage as on the said date and that it was in a scrapped condition. The second document is dated 05.10.2001 again certifying that the vehicle in question was in a scrapped condition and was valued at Rs.75,000/-. It is these solitary documents that are produced to establish the fact that the vehicle had become scrap on the same having met with an accident in the year 1998. It is therefore contended that since the vehicle has not been put to use on the road and notwithstanding that there was no compliance with Rule 34 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for brevity) and the requisite form in Form No.30 not having been filed the long period during which the vehicle had remained as scrap being demonstrated 7 by documents emanating from a statutory Body could be taken into consideration by this Court and appropriate relief be granted as the imposition of tax and fine in such a large sum would result in financial ruin of the present petitioner.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would take objection to the present application being considered and the petition being disposed of in a summary fashion without there being an enquiry at which any such evidence could be tested in cross-examination and the same being accepted by this Court in support of the case of the petitioner, when admittedly there was no compliance with the Rule cannot be urged in support of the case and would submit that admittedly in the eye of law the vehicle has not been declared by the Department as not being road 8 worthy, and therefore, in the admitted circumstance of non-compliance with Rule 30 of the Rules, the present petition would have to be summarily rejected.
7. In the circumstances of the case, and in the face of the absence of material particulars to hold that the petitioner was not liable to pay tax because the vehicle in question was not road worthy and has remained in a scrapped condition from the year 1998 is a matter that ought to have been established by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Courts below. This admittedly was not done as there was no material produced before the Courts below as already stated the only documents that are now made available are the certified copies of latters secured from Karnataka State Financial Corporation which is a statutory Body the contention that even those documents would have 9 to be tested in an enquiry, may not be tenable. The question as to whether this Court can accept these documents in proof of the vehicle having remained as scrap since the year 1998, though is a question of fact which requires to be established at an enquiry, the circumstance that the letters which are now produced emanate from a statutory Body cannot be brushed aside and the matter being remitted to the trial Court for an enquiry with reference to the said documents may not also be necessary as it would only be a formal exercise by the petitioner in seeking to urge the case and the vehicle having been scrap and having become useless. Therefore, even in the absence of non- compliance with the Rule it can be accepted that the vehicle had become scrap as early as in the year 1998. Since the tax that is claimed is approximately Rs.10,000/- per year, it can be safely 10 said that the petitioner would be absolved of the liability if tax is directed to be paid for atleast three years from 1997. Consequently, the petition is allowed subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the tax liability.
8. The petitioner having already deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- the State shall be entitled to withdraw the same towards the tax liability and the balance remaining of the tax liability and fine of Rs.3,000/- shall be deposited within two weeks, in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment of three months.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/