GOVINDSINGH AMARSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision applications arise out of two prosecutions started against the applicant for a breach of the provisions of Section 16(1)(a) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. The applicant is the owner of a goods vehicle BYY 546 and the prosecution case is that according to the provisions of the Act the quarterly rate of tax of the vehicle payable by the accused was Rs. 352.50. The complaint which is lodged by the Regional Transport Officer and Taxation Authority, Nagpur, states that the tax of the vehicle was payable by the registered owner by January 28, 1966, but the same was not paid and the owner did not send any intimation of non -use of the said vehicle as required by Rule 5(1) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959. Thus as the owner of the vehicle had not paid the tax Rs. 352.50 for the period January 1, 1966 to March 31, 1966, according to the complainant, he had committed an offence under Section 3 read with Section 16 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, in respect of the abovesaid period. The applicant was thus prosecuted in summary case No. 268 of 1967. On similar allegations in respect of the subsequent quarter, namely, for the period from April 1, 1966 to June 30, 1966, the applicant was prosecuted in summary case No. 270 of 1967.

(2.) THE accused admitted non -payment, as alleged by the complainant, but his case was that intimations of non -use of the vehicle were sent to the office in advance. It appears that the Office of the Regional Transport Officer had sent notices to the applicant for compounding the offence, but the case of the applicant was that the vehicle was not in use at the relevant period and as advance intimations were sent to the Regional Transport Officer under certificates of posting, tax was not paid by him and he had, therefore, committed no breach, as alleged. As the accused pleaded not guilty, on behalf of the complainant one witness was examined, who was a clerk in charge of the taxation department. The accused put himself in the witness -box and deposed to the despatch of the necessary intimations of non -use and he produced true copies of the said intimations and also the certificates of posting. It appears that since the two cases were similar, evidence of the accused was recorded only in Criminal Case No. 268 of 1967, The complainant's witness denied that any such intimations, as alleged by the applicant, were received. This evidence was accepted by the trying - Magistrate, who held that the intimations did not reach the proper authorities. The trying Magistrate further held that the intimations sent were not in proper form, as prescribed by Rule 5(1) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules;, 1959, the provision of which, according to the learned Magistrate, was mandatory, the result was that the applicant was held guilty of the offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act and he was called upon to pay the tax amount of Rs. 352.50 and a penalty of Rs. 355 or in default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in Criminal Case No. 268 of 1967 and a similar order was passed in other case also.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the lower Courts were not right in holding that the intimations of non -use of the vehicle which are required to be sent in accordance with Rule 5(1) are governed by Rule 7 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959. According to him, even if Rule 7 applied to the instant case merely because a document is sent by a mode other than the one which is prescribed by Rule 7, if, in fact, the document has been received at the other end, the applicant cannot be said to have committed any breach of the rule. It is also his contention that the requirement of Rule 5 that intimation of non -use must be given in form 'NT' is not a mandatory requirement and that the applicant had substantially complied with the said requirement, and therefore, the applicant was not guilty of any breach. Before I go to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel, it is necessary to see the scheme of the Act and refer to certain relevant provisions.