The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1177 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI. B.S ABOOBAKKER S/O SADUMONU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O BOLLAI HOUSE, SAJIPAMUDA POST, BANTWAL TQ, D.K-574 211. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHWATH C.M, AMICUS CURIAE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE MANGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 12.06.2017 MADE IN C.C.NO.3072/2015 BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-II, MANGALORE AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.10.2017 MADE IN CRL.A.NO.102/2017 BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCES WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.102/2017 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (hereinafter
Legal Reasoning
referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and thereby, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the JMFC (II Court) at Mangaluru in C.C.No.3072/2015 dated 12.06.2017. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are that: On the basis of the report of the Regional Transport Officer/Tax Authority, Mangaluru, a case has been registered in C.C.No.3072/2015 against the revision petitioner alleging that he being the registered owner in possession of the motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-12-1204 has failed to pay a tax of Rs.22,070/- for the period from 01.10.2004 to 30.09.2014. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 4. After securing the presence of the accused, learned Magistrate took cognizance and framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short 'KMVT Act'). 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, one
Legal Reasoning
Sri Ramesh Varnikar was examined as PW.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3. However, the accused examined himself as DW.1, but has not marked any documents on his behalf. 6. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, learned Magistrate convicted the accused and passed the following: "ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.32,000-00 (Tax arrears + penalty). In default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months." - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.102/2017. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 8. I have heard Sri Ashwath C.M., learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 9. The primary contention of learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner is that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while convicting the accused by not appreciating the evidence on record in a right perspective. According to him, the vehicle in question was not in the possession of the accused. To that effect, DW.1 specifically deposed that he had obtained loan from the Finance Company to purchase the vehicle in question. Thereafter, he was unable to repay the loan instalment. Hence, the Finance Company seized the vehicle from his residence. As such, he was unaware of the payment of the tax for the relevant period. In such - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 circumstances, as per the law laid down by this Court in Crl.A.No.983/2011 and connect matter, the prosecution has totally failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision petition. 10. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly convicted the accused for the charges levelled against him by placing reliance on the evidence of PW.1 i.e., the Regional Transport Officer, who specifically stated that the vehicle in question was in possession of the accused and also the RC book stands in the name of the accused and the accused failed to pay the road tax for the period from 01.10.2004 to 30.09.2014. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on record. 12. As could be gathered from the records, though the evidence of PW.1 depicts that the vehicle in question stands in the name of the accused and he failed to pay the tax of Rs.22,070/- for the relevant period. Albeit, PW.1 failed to place - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 any such reliable documents to show that the accused was in possession of the vehicle in question. The specific defence of the accused is that, he had obtained a loan from the Finance Company and in the year 2003, the officials of the Finance Company seized the vehicle in question since he failed to repay the loan. As such, he had no personal knowledge about payment of tax. 13. I have perused the judgment i.e., Crl.A.No.983/2011 and connected matter relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances by relying on the judgment of Muniswamy vs. State by Regional Transport Officer reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3032 held that if the complainant failed to prove any such evidence regarding the possession and control of the vehicle by the accused and mere production of RC book to substantiate that the accused is the owner of the vehicle itself cannot be a circumstance to prove the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of KMVT Act. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 14. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Muniswamy's case (supra) in paragraphs 7 and 8 held as under: "7. A perusal of the provisions contained in sub- section (1) (a) of section 12 show that, on a charge under Section 12(1) (a) it is not enough for the prosecution to merely produce evidence that the accused was the registered owner of the vehicle. It must further establish that either as registered owner or otherwise, he had possession or control of the vehicle in respect of which there was non- payment of tax. The said provision is usefully extracted hereunder: "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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 in respect of such vehicle and which may extend to a sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle……" A perusal of the provisions, as extracted above, would reveal that as per Section 12(1) (a), it is clear that no offence is committed u/s 12(1) (a) unless a person who has not paid the tax has possession or control of the motor vehicle either as registered owner of otherwise. It is not enough for the prosecution to merely produce the evidence that the accused was the registered owner of the vehicle. The prosecution had to further establish that either as registered owner of otherwise, the accused had possession or control of the motor vehicle in respect of which there was non-payment of tax. In fact, this question fell for consideration in the case of STATE OF MYSORE vs M.S. RAMAIAH wherein a Division Bench of this Court has, after referring to Section 6 of the repealed Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation and Tolls Act, 1951, which corresponded to Section 12(1) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 which repealed the earlier enactment, after noticing the contrast between the language of Section 6 of the repealed Act and Section 12(1) (a) of the repealing Act, has held that "whereas u/s 6 of the Act, a registered owner committed an offence if he did not pay the tax due by him, no offence is committed u/s 12(1) (a) unless a person who was - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 not paid the tax has possession or control of the motor vehicle either as registered owner of otherwise." 8. In the present case the Courts below have proceeded on an erroneous interpretation of the provision. They have also erred in holding that it was for the accused to establish that he lost possession of the vehicle and was no longer in the custody of the same. The approach adopted by the Courts below being illegal, the matter requires reconsideration. Hence, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER Criminal revision petitions are allowed. The judgments under challenge are set- aside. The cases are remanded back to the Magistrate for reconsideration. It is open to the parties to lead evidence afresh." 15. On collocating the law laid by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the above judgment to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that there is substantial force in the submission raised by the learned Amicus Curiae. In that view of the matter, interference is - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 required in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds. 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The revision petition is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.3072/2015, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.102/2017 are hereby set aside. iii). The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of KMVT Act. iv). The bail bond, if any, executed by the revision petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. v). The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him on due identification. vi) Registry is directed to return back the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order to the concerned Court forthwith. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14446 CRL.RP No. 1177 of 2017 The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as honorarium to Sri Ashwath C.M., learned Amicus Curiae for the revision petitioner, who has assisted in this matter. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19