BAKSHISH LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application was filed against the judgment of Shri R.N. Aggarwal, Sessions Judge, Mahasu, dated 12th June 1967, in Crinainal Appeal No. 9 M/14 of 1966, on his file, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the judgment of Shri Nihal Singh, Magistrate, 1st Class, Mahasu District, Kasumti, dated 30th.November 1965 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner herein under section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Passanger and Goods Act, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 250.00, and in default of payment of the fine immediately, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this Revision Application may be stated briefly. On 18th August 1965, Shri M. L. Gupta, Excise and Taxation Inspector, checked Bus No. PNS-596 at Solan. The bus was being driven by one Kanshi Ram and was being conducted by Ved Raj. The bus was owned by Simla Hills Transport Service Limited, which is a limited Company. On checking, the Inspector found that the owner of the vehicle had not changed Himachal Pradesh tax on tickets Nos 49888/90 49888/91 and 49888/92, issued from Simla to Solan. The complaint before the Magistrate was that the three persons, viz, Shri Bakshish Lal, who is the Secretary of the Company to which the above mentioned vehicle belongs, Kanshi Ram. who is the driver of the bus, and Ved Raj, who is the conductor of the bus, by not charging the tax due to Hianachal Government, on the tickets mentioned above, had violated the provisions of section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Passangers and Goods Taxation Act ( hereinafter referred to as the Ace) and the rules framed thereunder, and had thus committed an offence punishable under section l7of the said Act, Bakshish Lal appeared before the Magistrate on 12th October 1965, and his presence, in accordance with section 2(f) of the Act, wherein the word "owner" in respect of a vehicle is defined, was considered sufficient for the purpose of the alleged offence under the Act, and it was not considered necessary to insist upon the presence of tie other two accused persons. The accused Nos.1Bakshish Lal, being the Secretary of the company , was considered by the learned Magistrate as good an "owner" of the vehicle as the corr pany for the purposes of the Act. The particulars of the offence with which the three accused persons were accused were stated to Shri Bakshish Lal, accused No. I, and he was asked to show cause why they should not be convicted under section 17 of the Act Bakshish Lal pleaded in defence that their vehicle was registered with the Punjab Government for the pur pose of tax, that after realising the tax, they were paying the same to the Punjab State and that this practice was prevailing since 1952. He, however, admitted that the company has not been paying any tax separately to the Himachal Pradesh Government The contention on behalf of the complainant State was that in view of the clear provisions in section 3 of the. Act, the company was bound to pay 'he necessary share of the tax to Himachal Pradesh Government. On the other band, the contention on behalf of the accused was that the vehicle was registered in Punjab, that after realising the tax, the same was paid to the State of Punjab, and that the company was not liable to pay anything to the Himachal Pradesh Government.

(3.) I he learned Magistrate held that under section 3(3) of the Act, owners plying their vehicles from a place outside the territory of Himachal Pradesh, and vice versa, have to pay certain amount of tax to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the distance covered within the territory of Himachal Pradesh, that it is clear from the challan that the company plied the vehicle from Simla to Solan and was, therefore liable to pay certain tax to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the distance covered by the vehicle inside the tenitory of Himachal Pradesh, that it was clear from 'he plea at the accused that the company did not pay the tax to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, and that the accused thus committed an offence under section 17 of the Act Accordingly, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused Bakshish Lal under section 17 of the Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs 250.00, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.