Karnataka High Court
Sri Thimme Gowda vs State Of Karnataka By R T O Mandya on 27 August, 2009
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27"?" DAY OF AUGUST, 2009
BEFORE % .
THE I-{ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAWAD
CRL.R.p. NO. 682/06 C/W 5a3,5sgI:;<::a5II'_I#'I~ 11 A I
& 687 OF 2:006-C_A1
BETWEEN: «
SR1 THIMME GOWDA '
S/O THIMRAEGOWDA.AGEDjABO_UT 37 "YRS
R/AT K c3OLLAHA.LLI_ AK.ENsI3ER'I.'%FIOD_LI
BANGALORE SOUTH
_ _ RETITIONER
'_-. I .j;._CO§MMON IN ALL CASES
(By S.r'i._K I{"NARAS1:M HAN ,f-.ADV'.])
AND:
;'ST'AT.E}OF K*A"R NATAKA E§Y'"R T O MANDYA
. « . J RESPONDENT
_ _ COMMON IN ALL CASES
(Bysri RA-TTA"'SL!.B'RAMANYA BHAT, HCGP)
I I >i<>i<*
CRL';RP FILESDSU/S. 397 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
.1 FOR THE RETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
':sI_AY~..ESEU "PLHEA.SED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
~--CO.NvIC"IfION, AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE
ADDL. 8: S.J., MANDYA IN CRL.A.NO'S. 7,11,12,13 8L
15"OF'_2004, DT. 19.1.2005 AND BY THE C.3.(JR.Dl'\3) 8t
JMF'C.,,__ ?-- NAGAMANGALA IN C.C.NO's.
I1=3.I7_/99,140/99,141/09,142/09 8: 144/09 DT. 29.122003.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
___THIS DAY THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:~
F-)
ORDER
Petitioner is common in all these petitionvs._::a«.nfd..vvhas assailed the Judgment in (Sri. A. No. 7, 11, 15 of 2004 dated 19-01-2005 o.n,,th_e fiie"o'f--.:iear'ned..'Avdjdi';»H' District and Sessions Judge, Mandya.:f'=.:' A
2. As cornnnon questio"ni.of iaw._a'nd".=faci;s arises in this appeal and as parti..es areiiiconjmiforn, all the petitions are clubbed and taken up for b.~,r_:ft'ti.i.s.zc_:"ommon order.
3. learned cou;-nsei:"""Sri i<.V.Narasirnhan appearing fo,r':pet,i,tioiie'r a"r'd'- learned Government Pieader Sri Raja E§vubra.rna'riii{«a__:i?5ha't«,,,>fo.r__ iespondent ~ State. .4. '"'~?I'h'e._',Reg_i"onai Transport Officer, Mandya, pr=i=;§fs3'en,t.,ed.__theA'"ch~a~rg'e against the petitioner herein to prose,cLitei ,,t'iie' "petitioner for the offence punishable under sadism 4 read with Sec, 12 (la) and (lb) of the Karna~tai§.a Motor Vehicle Taxation Act (in short 'the Act'), on A Cfrhe"~«_a|Iegations that petitioner was owner of transport .' xrehicie bearing registration No, KA--13 / 1527 and had not paid taxes for the periods from 01-04-1997 to 30-06-1997 amounting to Rs.4,72S/--; from 01-01-1998 to 31-93-1998 amounting to Rs.4,72S/--; from 01-O4-1998 to aog-oag--1gV998 amounting to Rs/L965/-; from o1-07-:998eit$d93ov§s'tgrs§19.93 amounting to Rs.4,965/-; from Qlg-19-1998' amounting to Rs.4,96S/-- and from 'to7-3.1"'i.i):3-- . 1999 amounting to Rs.4,9:6S,./_-. dd':-"he report~».i."a-n.dV sheets were registered in 137, 142, 143 and 144 of 1999'.
S. d resisted the prosecutioihu that he was not due of any taxon the ground that he had purchased .purchase agreement from M/s iV!anii_<anta"Auto.Ei-nan_ce~~--'and the vehicie was hypothecated to He aisou---rg«e'd that vehicie was seized by financier V'-V.'a.n'd~_ti'*.e_ni it for recovery of the amount to one {iii-.C;'F§.an_1daVi§rfisrhna. The said Ramakrishna had deposited Rs.2'O~,OV:C{)/9- and had also chaiienged the seizure of the A 'ArT§3;ld1d'!'('_'.|8' by M/s Manikanta Auto Finance and refusai of the |§;TO to change the registration in the records in pursuance ai»s-
11. It is seen from the material placed on record that there is iittie or no dispute with regard to the liability to pay the tax in respect of the vehicle bearing regiéstratiion No. KA-13 / 1527 for the relevant period. But i.-isfas to who is iiabie. The petitioner had come 'up .:\.,:fi:I';i.3IhV"'f:|(?1'AaVi' before the triai Court that the \:r.ehii:~lefwais.now iinii'-iph3«'.:S.ica|""
possession of Rama_krishna_i_ah,:_ the p'urc_hVaser from the financier. He had a|Vs'oibroL}.gh.;t' ou't.Vytih:'at.,yfinancier had taken the possessionof the:.veh.ic'ie'inssexetrciserof power under hire purchase _a.g§ryeer§riie_i1t~. ih _ V 'i.i?irorn::f:'§Va'ii fa'ct's"Vit is noticed that physicai possession of. theav\2'eih'ic!e_.was taken from the petitioner. Thereforefit is .ciear*~.that purchaser was in possession of the hasxtosp-ay the tax. Moreover, the possession of changed from hand to hand between Rainwakiishiiaiiah, the purchaser and financier. It is therefore, ciear that the person who is in physical A .pVossession of the vehicie is iiabie to pay the tax for the 'relevant period. Hence, I do not find any error in assessment by the triai Court that even on fact and axle (,2 9 after conviction deposited 50% of the amount towards order regarding sentence.
14. Hence RTO shaii account for entir_efs'a«'i.e_~proceeds of the vehicle and amount received from .Ranfiai<'ri-sihnaiavh any other person and adjustlit toéviiardocs"I4.i§'ahi'Iit\;.L'of:rthe"-- petitioner and to pay baiance amount Therefore, petitioner is to refunVVd'v'of.':i;he amount deposited. The the entire process within day/AS..f pt of the copy of this orderif Si/e HEDGE \/K5"