ANWAR SADIQ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent- State.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the Regional Transport Office, Mangalore is that the accused/revision petitioner failed to pay the tax amount due on his registered vehicle as required under Ss. 3 and 4 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) and he is liable for punishment under Sec. 12 of the Act.

(3.) The Trial Court considered the material on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents of Exs.P1 and P2 i.e., 'B' Register Extract and show cause notice respectively which was served on him, also taken note of the signature of RTO Inspector which is marked as Ex.P2(a) and also ration card and Aadhar card of the accused which are produced as Exs.P3 and P4. The respondent-accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D6.