J A AHAMED HAJI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these revision petitions are directed against the common judgment dated 27-2-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madikeri, in Cri. A. Nos. 84 to 90 and 92 to 98 of 2000 whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the judgment dated 23-11-2000 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial magistrate First Class (II Court), Madikeri, in C. C. Nos. 40 to 44, 48 and 49 of 1997. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders the revision petitioner-accused 1 has come up with the above revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P. C. mainly on the ground that as per Ex. D. 4, the RTO, Madikeri, has transferred the vehicle in question in the name of the second respondent, therefore the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are illegal and incorrect and liable to be set aside.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned high Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.

(3.) THE brief facts of these cases are that the revision petitioner is the original owner of the vehicle bearing No. CNZ 4785 and according to the revision petitioner he entered into an agreement with the respondent 2-accused 2-S. K. Monnappa dated 28-11-1994 for exchanging the vehicles and the criminal cases have been filed against him and the second respondent for offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) and 4 (1) read with Section 12 (1) (a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for non-payment of arrears of tax for the period from 1-1-1995 to 30-6-1995 at the rate of Rs. 800/- towards quarterly tax. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the instant cases, himself and S. K. Monnappa entered into an exchange agreement for exchange of vehicles belonging to them earlier to the alleged arrears of quarterly tax for the period from 1-1-1995 to 30-6-1995 therefore he is not liable to pay any tax and the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is totally illegal and incorrect. Further, it is maintained that Section 9 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles taxation Act, 1957 that registered owner or the person who is in possession of the vehicle is liable for conviction for non-payment of quarterly tax. Whereas, in the instant cases the Trial Court convicted both the registered owner as well as the person who was in possession of the vehicle, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions judge is illegal and incorrect.