Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Bohra Dalichand on 18 March, 1987
Equivalent citations: ILR1987KAR1208, 1987(1)KARLJ429
JUDGMENT Nesargi, J.
1. These appeals by the State arise out of the common judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur on 6-2-86 in C.C. Nos. 209/85, 208/85, 211/85, 213/85, 212/85, 214/85, 215/85 and 30/86 respectively.
2. The respondent in Crl. Appeal Nos. 428 and 438 of 1986 is one and the same, Sri. Bohra Dalichand. The undisputed fact is he was the owner in possession of goods vehicle No. MYR 5087. Quarterly tax amounting to Rs. 1430/- for each quarter was liable to be paid in respect of the said vehicle. He did not pay the quarterly tax for the period from 1-5-1985 to 31-7-1985 (CC 208/85) on 15-5-85 but paid the same on 31-7-1985. In regard to the period from 1-8-1985 to 31-10-1985 he did not pay the quarterly tax on or before 15-8-1985 but paid the same on 31-84985 (C.C. 209/85).
3. The prosecution contended that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) He pleaded guilty.
4. The respondent in Crl. Appeal Nos. 429, 439, 440, 441 and 442 of 1986 is one Sri. Eshwarappa. He owns goods vehicle bearing Regn. No MEP 3327 and he paid the quarterly tax on 28-2-1983, 15-3-85, 14-12-84, 9-9-85 and 22-6-85 instead of making the payments on or before 15-2-83, 15-2-85, 15-11-84, 15-8-85 and 15-5-85. (C.C. Nos. 211/85, 212/85, 213/85, 214/85 and 215 of 85 respectively). He is, therefore, said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. He pleaded guilty.
5. The respondent in Crl. Appeal No. 443 of 1986 is one Sri Govind Narayan Murdadr. He owns a goods vehicle bearing Regn. No. MYR 3417. The prosecution case is he paid the quarterly tax on 13-6-85 instead of paying it on or before 15-5-85. He is, therefore, said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. He pleaded guilty.
6. Learned Chief Judical Magistrate has relying on a decision of this Court in Nagaraj v. Assistant R.T.O. Bangalore, 1982 (1) KLJ 102 convicted and sentenced the accused persons to pay a fine equal to quarterly tax. However, as the respondents had paid taxes for the respective quarters, though late, he ordered that the said amount of fine has to be set-off in the tax amount already paid by them.
7. Learned State Public Prosecutor has contended before us that the principle of law applied by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not correct on the plain reading of Section 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and further that the correct principle of law has been laid down by this Court in Chandriah Swamy v. State of Karnataka, ILR (Karnataka) 1977(2) 1561. Section 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Act reads :
"12. Penalties :-- (1) Whoever--
(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, or
(b) delivers a declaration or additional declaration wherein the particulars required by or under this Act to be therein set forth are not fully and truly stated, shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the quarterly tax payable in respect of such vehicle and which may extend to a sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle ; and in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this Section with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the tax payable in respect of such vehicle for two quarters and which may extend to a sum equal to twice the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle ; and the amount of any tax due shall be recoverable as if it were a fine."
The plain reading of the Section shows that on conviction a fine equal to the quarterly tax payable, as a minimum, and extending to a sum equal to the annual tax payable, as a maximum, shall be imposed in regard to the first offence and in addition to that the amount of any tax due shall be recoverable as if it were fine. What is recoverable as if it were a fine is the amount of tax due under a particular quarter. The fine imposable on conviction for the said offence is equal to the quarterly tax, as a minimum, and annual tax as maximum. Therefore, there is no scope for understanding that the tax recoverable as if it were fine is part and parcel of quantum of fine that can be levied on conviction for the said offence. The tax recoverable as if it were a fine is quite distinct and different from the fine that can be imposed on conviction for the said offence. In that view of the matter there cannot be, in law, any set-off of one against the other.
8. The decision in Nagaraj v. Asst. R. T. O. Bangalore, 1982 (1) KLJ 102 is rendered by K. Jagannatha Shetty. J, as he then was, sitting singly. A reading of this decision shows that the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had every reason to apply this decision as it lays down the principle of set-off. The exposition of understanding of Section 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, in the said ruling, is to the effect that the tax recoverable as arrears of fine may be part and parcel of the fine imposable on conviction for having committed an offence under Section 12(1)(a). With great respect to Learned Judge we are unable to agree with this view. We agree with the principle of law laid down in Chandraiah Swamy's case, ILR (Karnataka) 1977(2) 1561 ;.
9. In the result we allow these appeals and the direction passed by the Learned Magistrate in all these criminal cases, directing set-off of the fine for the tax already paid is set aside.