IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.565/2014 BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH RTO, DAVANAGERE-577001. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP) AND:
SAGAYANATHAN, S/O.M.ANTHONY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BEHIND RAILWAY RUNNING ROOM, HARLAPUR, HARIHARA TALUK-577601. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.HALUMA AMUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.7.2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.170 OF 2010 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 30.11.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED J.M.F.C-II, DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.718/2005 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3 & 4 R/W 12 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT I.A.No.1/2014 is filed for condonation of delay of 245 days in filing the appeal, for which the learned counsel for the respondent has objections. However, considering the grounds urged in the affidavit filed in support of the application and as the Court has to hear the matter on merits with regard to the admission of the case, delay should not come in the way of disposal of the matter on merits. Hence, delay of 245 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A.No.1/2014 is allowed.
2. On careful perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the State has filed a criminal case in C.C.No.718/2005 on the file of the II Additional JMFC, Davanagere, for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act.
3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. After recording the plea of the accused as he pleaded not guilty, the trial Court in fact convicted the accused and imposed fine of Rs.5,565/- and in default to undergo S.I. for two months and also directed the accused to remit arrears of tax of Rs.66,729/-. The said order was called in question by the accused in Crl.A.No.170/2010 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere wherein the learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that the trial Court has committed serious error in convicting the appellant for the above said offence and consequently by a detailed judgment acquitted the accused of the said offences.
4. Learned Appellate Judge has considered the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the legal point. The appellate Court has relied upon the ruling of this Court reported in 1993(2) Kar.L.J. 356 [State of Karnataka and another .vs. Laxminarayana Madyastha] wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed that, accused is in actual possession of the vehicle and there is no direct evidence of use of the vehicle during the relevant period. Under such circumstances of the case, accused is not liable to pay tax. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that the vehicle was used during the relevant period, the accused is not liable to pay tax. The appellate Court has also relied upon another ruling of this Court reported in ILR 1993 KAR 176 (Vinayaka Bhat .vs. State by Asst. RTO) wherein the above said principle has been reiterated by this Court. On appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1, the appellate Court has come to the conclusion that there is no material placed before the Court. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the vehicle was actually plied on the road even after information was given that the vehicle has become scrap. Therefore, the version of P.W.1 even if it is accepted, there is no reason to convict the accused persons. Under that circumstance, both on law and facts, the appellate Court has considered the case and come to a right conclusion that the accused has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court and as such set aside the said judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.718/2005 dated 30.11.2010 and consequently, acquitted the accused.
On looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case as the Appellate Court has rightly considered the case on merits both on law and facts, there is no interference called for by this Court. Hence, the appeal preferred by the State is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.