M.H. HASANABBA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Section 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,