MUNISWAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these revision petitions as common questions of facts and law are raised, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading to these revision petitions are that, a complaint came to be registered against the revision petitioners under Section 12 (1) as per the provisions of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Act for short) by the jurisdictional RTO alleging that the accused/ the owner of the lorry bearing No. MYY 6891 being liable to pay the tax as per the provisions contained under Section 3 (4) (a) of the Act, had not paid the same and had fallen in arrears for the period 1. 5. 1999 to 1. 5. 2002. Demand notices were sent to the accused calling upon him to pay the tax. Though served with notice by registered post, the accused did not comply with the demand made. Therefore, the RTO filed charge sheet against the accused in respect of offences allegedly committed for different periods which came to he numbered as CC No. 1339/02, 1340/02, 1341/01, 1342/01 and 1343/02 on the file of the JMFC, Hospet. The accused appeared before the court and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2 in support of its case. However, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence both the oral and documentary held that the accused was guilty of the offences and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,500/- in each of the cases and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(3.) THE defence set-up by the accused was that the person in whose, favour the vehicle was hypothecated had seized the vehicle and taken custody of the same and eventually got transferred the vehicle in his name even in the RC book and therefore, the accused was not liable to pay the tax. This is discernible from the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court refused to take note of this defence stating that in the statement given by him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused did not come forward with any such defence and therefore he could not be permitted to take-up the said defence. The Magistrate held that since the accused failed to show that he was not in possession of the vehicle, it was to be inferred that he continued to be in possession. The Sessions Judge, on appeal, has affirmed the findings recorded by the Magistrate holding that nothing prevented the accused to implicate the person sri Venugopal in whose favour the vehicle was allegedly hypothecated and who had taken over the possession of the vehicle, by filing an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The Sessions Judge further opines that though it was suggested in the cross-examination of the RTO that the accused was not in a possession, no suggestion was made at any time that the accused was no longer the owner of the vehicle.