@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Pradeep D. Waingankar, J.@mdashThis criminal revision petition u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is filed against an order dated 8-10-2009 in C.C. No. 504 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madikeri, convicting the revision petitioner/accused under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) read with Section 12(1)(a) of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,268/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days which has been confirmed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2009 by judgment dated 29-11-2010. Revision petitioner was the accused and the respondent was the complainant before the Magistrate. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/M.H. Hasanabba is the registered owner of Van bearing Reg. No. CNZ-5171 a light motor vehicle. He is in possession and control of the vehicle. But for the period running from 1-1-2002 to 31-3-2002 he failed to pay quarterly tax amounting to Rs. 2,268/-. He was called upon to pay the tax by issuance of notice by the respondent-RTO, Madikeri. Even then, he failed to pay the tax. As such, charge-sheet came to be filed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. He appeared before the Magistrate and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined one Satyanarayana Prasad-RTO as P.W. 1 and marked three documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 3. The accused, on the other hand/got himself examined as D.W. 1 and marked Exs. D. 1 to D. 4. Learned Magistrate, upon hearing and upon consideration of the evidence placed on record by both the parties oral and documentary by order dated 8-10-2009 convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 2,268/-. The appeal filed by the accused before the District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, also came to be dismissed by judgment dated 29-11-2010. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the records.
3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is not liable to pay the quarterly tax for the period running from 1-1-2002 to 31-3-2002 for which the charge-sheet in question is filed for the reason that the vehicle of the petitioner was stolen and in that connection the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 4-10-2001. He also submitted that both the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge have wrongly cast the burden upon the petitioner/accused to establish that he was not in possession of the vehicle for the aforesaid period instead of fastening burden on the prosecution and hence the Counsel for the petitioner has sought to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Since the prosecution failed to discharge the burden,
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted before me that the vehicle was in possession of the petitioner for the period running from 1-1-2002 to 31-3-2002 and therefore he is liable to pay motor vehicle tax for the said period. Since he failed to pay the tax for the said period, a complaint came to be filed and thereby he has been convicted and ordered to pay the penalty totally amounting to Rs. 2,268/- inclusive of the tax. Hence, learned Government Pleader has sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
5. Upon going through the evidence placed on record by the prosecution i.e., evidence of RTO who has been examined as P.W. 1 and the evidence of the accused who has been examined as D.W. 1 coupled with the documents marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 3 and Exs. D. 1 to D. 4, what emerges is that the petitioner was the registered owner of the van bearing Reg. No. CNZ-5171 for the relevant period is not in dispute. It is also borne out from Ex. P. 1, ''B'' extract of the said vehicle issued by the concerned RTO. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not paid the motor vehicle tax for the period running from 1-1-2002 to 31-3-2002. It is also not in dispute that since the petitioner failed to pay the tax, he was called upon to pay the tax by issuance of notice by RPAD, a copy of which is marked as Ex. P. 2. The defence of the accused is that he is not liable to pay the tax for the aforesaid period for the reason that he was not in possession of the said vehicle for the aforesaid period. It is his case that the vehicle was stolen in the month of October 2001 and in that connection he had filed a complaint on 4-10-2001 before the Madikeri City Police Station. Ex. D. 4 is an endorsement given by Madikeri City Police that the vehicle in question could not be traced. The case of the prosecution is that the vehicle was in possession of the petitioner for the aforesaid period and simply in order to avoid payment of tax the petitioner seems to have given a complaint and managed to obtain an endorsement from the police as per Ex. D. 4. Ex. D. 3 is the copy of the letter written by the petitioner to the RTO, Kodagu at Madikeri wherein he stated that since he had obtained a loan for the purchase of the said vehicle he sold the same to one Krishna and in that connection and that he had already informed the RTO. It is pertinent to note that in the same letter he also prays for waiver of the tax. Further, it is interesting to note in the said letter that he informs the police regarding the sale of the said vehicle by him on 4-10-2001. Thus, the defence of the accused is that the vehicle was stolen in the month of October 2001 and in that connection he had given a complaint to the police on 4-10-2001. But, at the same time he also said that he has sold the vehicle to one Krishna. If he has really sold the vehicle to one Krishna, the name of Krishna ought to have been entered in the RC Book. But the ''B'' extract issued by the RTO marked as Ex. P. 1 makes it clear that the vehicle still stands in the name of the petitioner who has been using it without payment of tax. Thus, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner is the RC owner in actual possession of the vehicle as on the date of filing of the charge-sheet. The petitioner has failed to produce the original RC Book. He gives an explanation that the original RC Book was kept in the vehicle which was stolen. The defence put forth by the petitioner is impossible to believe and accept. Learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge having regard to the conflicting defences taken by the accused have come to the conclusion that the vehicle is still in the name of the accused and he is in possession of the same and just to escape from the liability to pay tax he has falsely stated that the vehicle was stolen on 4-10-2001 and again he has stated that he has sold the vehicle to one Krishna on 4-10-2001. Rightly for the said reason, the defence put forth by the accused was not accepted both by the Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge which resulted in his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. I do not find any illegalities or irregularities committed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. There is no merit in this revision petition. Hence, I pass the following order.
Criminal revision petition is dismissed.
