GANAPATI GOPAL BHAT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is common in all these revision petitions. He is the registered owner/rc holder in respect of the vehicles MYS 1723. He came to be prosecuted in all these cases for failure to pay tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ('act' for short) for several quarters ranging from 1-5-1982 to 31-1-1986. In all the said cases, he has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine equivalent to tax for one quarter, in default to under SI for three months. His appeals have come to be dismissed. He has now approached this Court under Section 397, Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE first ground urged by Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that all complaints were barred by time and the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence concerned in view of Section 468, Cr. P. C. occurring in Chapter XXXVI, Cr. P. C. Inthis regard, provisions of the Karnataka Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1981 (Act 10 of 1982) needs to be referred to. Section 2 of the said Act reads thus :

(3.) SRI Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned counsel for the petitioner, next contended that the vehicle was not in use during the relevant period, same having been left in the garage for repairs. On facts, it is found that not only that there was no proper intimation to the authorities concerned about non-use of the vehicle, but that, there was no satisfactory evidence with regard to the vehicle having been left in the garage, and that, on the contrary, there was evidence with regard to the vehicle having been found plying on roads and having been checked. In fact, it is pointedly referred to as to how, even the petitioner admitted his liability to pay tax and prayed for time.