Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28989 (KAR)

SMT. ERAMMA v. STATE BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

CRL.P/6817/2023 · 2025-03-04

Mohammad Nawaz

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6817 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. ERAMMA W/O GOLLARAPPA GOWDA S PATIL, AGE:32 YRS, R/O 4TH CROSS, C BLOCK, KONDAJJI ROAD, DEVRAJ URS LAYOUT, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, DAVANGERE-577 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANGERE DATED 3.5.2023 ON I.A. IN C.C.NO.2191/2015. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking to set aside the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere in C.C.No.2191/2015. 2. For non-payment of motor vehicle tax for the period 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2015 amounting to Rs.57,720/-, the Regional Transport Officer, Taxation Authority, Davanagere filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate alleging contravention of Section 3 and 4 of KMVT Act,1957 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act. 3. In the course of the trial proceedings an application under Section 319 was filed by the petitioner stating that the vehicle in question i.e., a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-16-A-9178 was seized by IndusInd Bank on 01.09.2014 and therefore, the said lorry was in possession of IndusInd Bank, who is liable to pay the motor vehicle tax from the said date. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023 4. The application seeking to implead IndusInd Bank as an accused came to be rejected vide impugned order holding that the petitioner has not placed any material to show that the vehicle was not in her possession and that she was not the owner of the vehicle between 01.07.2013 and 31.12.2015. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Ex.P4, the complaint dated 01.09.2014 filed by the petitioner with the police alleging that the vehicle in question was seized by IndusInd Bank. Further, the learned Magistrate at para 15 of the order has observed that as per the documents furnished, the lorry bearing registration No.KA-16-A-9178 was seized by the IndusInd Bank on 01.09.2014. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that as per the registration certificate, petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and she has paid tax from 01.04.2013 to 30.06.2013 and therefore, she is liable to pay the tax for the subsequent period. It is further - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023 contended that in the reply submitted to the complainant/RTO, the fact of seizure of vehicle has not been informed. 7. Petitioner is relying on the documents produced at Exs.D1 to D17 marked before the trial Court. 8. If the vehicle was seized on 01.09.2014, then the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax from the said date of seizure of the vehicle. The motor vehicle tax pertaining to the period subsequent to 01.09.2014 cannot be recovered from the petitioner if she was not in possession of the vehicle consequent to its seizure. Merely because the petitioner was shown as the registered owner of the vehicle that itself is not sufficient to recover tax from the petitioner subsequent to the date of seizure, if it is proved that the vehicle was seized on 01.09.2014 and the petitioner was not in possession of the vehicle since the said date. However, impleading IndusInd Bank as an accused in this case does not arise. It is for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023 prosecution to prove that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax for the period stated in the complaint. 9. With the above observation, the order passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere dated 03.05.2023 in C.C.No.2191/2015 is confirmed and petition is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 Ct:ar