DURGA PRASAD CHIRANIA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these four revision petitions was the accused in the Court of the I addl. Munsiff' cum-First Class Magistrate, Bellary. He has been prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under S.3(l) read with Section 12 (1) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prosecution case was that he being the owner of the vehicle MYY 3786 has failed to pay the tax for - the quarter ending 30-9-1970 to the quarter ending 30-6-1971. The appeals filed by him against the said conviction and sentence passed on him were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bellary. In these petitions, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence passed on him.

(2.) Sri C. Narasimhachar learned Counsel appealing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that before there can be a conviction under S.3(l) read with S.12(l) of the Act, the prosecution must prove first that (1) the vehicle was suitable for use on roads, and (2) that the vehicle was kept in the State of Mysore. It is contended that the prosecution has not let in any evidence on these two points. The only witntss examined in the case is PW.1, the RTO. He has stated in his cross-examination that the evidence given by him is with reference to the official record and the vehicle in question has not been inspected by him or any of his subordinates. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. Frantin D'Souza 1965 (2) Mys.L.J. 99 and another decision of this Court rendered in CrRP. Nos.87 to 91 of 1973. The learned Counsel has also contended that the petitioner is entitled to the exemption referred to in the notification issued by the Government under S.16 of the Act, as the petitioner has intimated to the RTO about the non-user of the vehicle and the various documents such as the registration certificate, permit and the token could not be produced by him as they were not in his possession or control. When that was the case it is argued that the petitioner is entitled to claim the exemption under S.16 of the Act and there is no liability on him to pay the tax. Strong reliance is placed on two Bench decisions of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Commr. for Transport 1966 (1) Mys.L.J. 794. and in M. N. Ramaswamy v. RTO, Shimoga 1967 (1) Mys.L.J. 117. in support of the said contention.

(3.) Taking the first contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that tha prosecution has not let in any evidence to show that the vehicle was suitable for use on roads, the Courts below have rightly pointed out that in the instant case, the Explanation to S.3 of the Act would be applicable. The said explanation says that a motor vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current shall for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the registration certificate of the vehicle was in force. In State of Mysore v. Frantin D'Souza(l) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a Bench of this High Court has pointed out that from the provisions of the Explanation to S.3(1) of the Act when the certificate of registration in respect of the vehicle was current, the vehicle should be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads during the relevant period. I, therefore, see no force in the first contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.