State of Karnataka vs Ashvin Dave

Rathnakala, J.—Though the matter is listed for orders, it is taken up for final disposal.

As per the report of the police, the respondent herein, expired on 22.06.2014.

The facts succinctly stated, on the complaint of RTO, Chikodi, the authorised signatory of Head Centurion Bank was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Motor Vehicle Act and punishable under Section 12 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. After a full fledged trial, the accused was found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,02,960/-. Aggrieved accused went in appeal before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the Court below. The State has carried forward the lis before this Court. In the meanwhile, the report of the police is placed on record about the death of Ashvin Dave, who is the authorised signatory of Head Centurion Bank now merged with HDFC Bank. The offence for which the respondent was convicted was under Section 12 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, which reads thus:

"12. Penalties.- (1) Whoever --

(a) as a registered owner or otherwise has possession or control of any motor vehicle liable to tax under this Act without having paid the amount of the tax or additional tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of such vehicle; or

(b) delivers a declaration or additional declaration wherein the particulars required by or under this Act to be therein set forth are not fully and truly stated, shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the quarterly tax payable in respect of such vehicle and which may extend to a sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle; and in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this section with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the tax payable in respect of such vehicle for two quarters and which may extend to a sum equal to twice the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle; and the amount of any tax due shall be recoverable as if it were a fine.

[(2) x x x]

(3) Whoever --

(a) contravenes the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 5; or

(b) fails to stop a motor vehicle when required to do so by any officer under Section 11, shall on conviction be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees.

(4) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act other than those punishable under sub-sections (1) and (3) shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine, which may extend to one hundred rupees."

Admittedly, the respondent was not the registered owner of the vehicle alleged to have been seized and taken possession. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused by inferring that he had admitted possession of the vehicle in criminal revision petition filed by him before the Hon''ble High Court. The learned District Judge on reading of all the concerned judgments of criminal revision petitions passed by this Court has found that there is no such admission on the part of the accused about the possession of the vehicle in question.

This Court, in a judgment reported in 2010 (4) KLJ 378, at para No. 10.1 has held as follows:

"10.1. From a combined reading of Sections 4 and 9 of the Act, the position is clear that, a registered owner of the motor vehicle or a person having possession and control of the motor vehicle, are liable to pay the motor vehicle tax, be it current or arrears. The primary obligation to pay M. V. tax is on the registered owner of the vehicle. Even when he parts with possession and control of the vehicle either voluntarily or otherwise, his liability to pay M.V. tax does not cease, so long as he continues to be the registered owner. The person who takes possession and control of the vehicle becomes liable to pay M.V. Act as a co-obligant. The liability of registered owner and person in possession and control of the vehicle is joint and several. In short, whether a registered owner was in possession of the motor vehicle or not, so long as the registration of the vehicle remained in his name, his liability to pay M.V. tax does not cease, even if the financier had taken possession and control of the vehicle." 6. From the above, the position is clear that the petitioner not being the registered owner of the motor vehicle and not admitting his possession and control of the vehicle, could not have been saddled with the punishment under Section 12 of the Act. Moreover, the authorised signatory of the respondent-Bank is no more and no purpose would be served in ordering further process to the Bank to nominate its authorised signatory. Hence, there are no good grounds to entertain the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.