Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka Through Regional ... vs Sri Krishna M Itagi on 8 February, 2012
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE I H COURTOF KAr>.ii~iA.TAKA*.. 1 CIR5lU(t'T BENCH'A_T~~.pHARWAD Dated this the 8"' day of i0Febir:1g1ry, #20102' '0 ,-g.Bef0r,e"' -. THE HON 'BLE MR JUS _T;tC_E--'__ Hy1.'u<--ia:4i'D1i G RAMESH Criminal Appeals 23 7 C/W 233, 23 5'--._(1_i1(I_'_.236 / 2007 Between: _ _ 0' ' ' S State ofKarnatakaifithroughv H ._ . Regional TransportQfficer*~ » common Kappa! tttt ' Appellant (By Sri Viinayak ' '0 And: 03 ii 0 3 ii Sri Krishna M ltiagi_yiS/"o.Mari-yappa ltagi common ,lUO Bh'ai'gyanagar. Ko'ppa__l____& _ Respondent il':(By;Sri_Chandrashelgar P Patil, Adv.) Thesie»_Crinrivnial Appeals are filed under S.378(l) & (3) of Cr.PCVagainst"pjthe}= order of acquittal dated 13.10.2006 by the JMFC. Koppal in .98'/2003; CC 100/2003; CC 101/2003; CC 97/2003 and 4 CC 99/2003,. delivered the following: _ Tliesei Criminal Appeals coming on for hearing this day; the J/" JUDGMENT
These five appeals have been filed'ib§ the State order ofthe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koppali'inxindiv.id_ua'1=cases:.:l1led1'- regarding payment of arrears ol'quar[.3£l'y<,tax in cab bearing No. KA 37 2108 registered.=iniithe:titan';-e._ol' riespoindent. On the ground that since 1997 been paid, five separate cases filed iilorl:pollAe'ct.i_onVioijiarrears of tax before the CJM, actgui-tted the accused. Hence. these appeals.' * a.
Heard the couniselj~representi'ng the parties. .}\Ci;'Ordi--ng to the"'G'oiverninent Pleader, as per S.4 of the Motor i"'\/eltflcles tvtax has to be paid every quarter fifteen days in aduance. Thei':oi"l;ence is punishable under S.l2(l) of the Act. it is ill"-'«.___l'3.tated thatflhe accused failed to pay the tax from 1.10.1997 till 1 and the learned Magistrate also failed to look into the _p_r(,ivisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is stated. when actually the J4"
vehicle was seized is not looked into and nothing has been _esta'b~..l'ished to show that the vehicle was notrin use from 1.10. 1997 .
It is further submitted, even the finding oi: the trial"co--uri ,that it was"
permissible for the respondent to ill€i'».l9'0I'!:I'i--'.3i0iibyi Rs.lO()/-- with retrospective effect doeswnot atpallgi i ii Thoughtihe vehicle was availed loan from KFSC, what has seized the vehicle for non-payiizent course of inquiry before the is learned Magistrate that the vprespvondehtii:.§as_iiniot' of the vehicle during the relevantixperiod was seized by the KSFC. Of course, as per.__the_inandate,"Forth 30 has to be filled up and submitted to authorities seeking exemption from payment of tax for noiimuse .ot'«the{vehicle. In that context, the CJM has opined that it is notiiaideiliberate"act on the part of the respondent in not paying the
-- arrears oftaxi; facts, it has noted, the vehicle was in the custody of and was not used during the relevant period. and in all
-- thesecases it has observed that the vehicle was not available nor used JV of the offence.
complaint. No scope for interference.
An Rightly the learned Appeals are dismissed.
Magistrate has dismissed the