- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3345 CRL.RP No. 1475 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1475 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ANWAR SADIQ S/O AHMED BHAVA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O FISHH MILL DARGA ROAD, MUKKA MANGALORE-574 146. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED MONISH SOWKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE IN CRL.A.51/2023 DATED 31/08/2024 (ANN-A) AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JMFC (II COURT) MANGALORE, IN CC NO.2534/2018 DATED 30/01/2023 (ANN-B). Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3345 CRL.RP No. 1475 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent- State. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the Regional Transport Office, Mangalore is that the accused/revision petitioner failed to pay the tax amount due on his registered vehicle as required under Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (‘the Act’ for short) and he is liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Act. 3. The Trial Court considered the material on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents of Exs.P1 and P2 i.e., ‘B’ Register Extract and show cause notice respectively which was served on him, also taken note of the signature of RTO Inspector which is marked as Ex.P2(a) and also ration card and Aadhar card of the accused which are produced as Exs.P3 and P4. The respondent-accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D6. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3345 CRL.RP No. 1475 of 2024 4. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, comes to the conclusion that though defence was taken that he was not the owner of the vehicle, taken note that notice was served long back and he did not give any reply to the notice. The accused contends that someone had registered the vehicle in his name and in order to rebut the same, except producing the documents at Exs.D1 to D6 i.e., complaint given to Surathkal Police Station, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, complaint, postal receipt and copy of the post letter, nothing is placed on record. It is also observed that complaint was sent through registered post on December, 2018 and no document is produced to show that what was the further steps taken by him, except complaint through post and hence, not accepted the case of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.67,133/- within 90 days, but not imposed any sentence. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also taking note of specific argument before the First Appellate Court, particularly in paragraph No.14, taken note of the fact that, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3345 CRL.RP No. 1475 of 2024 personally not went to the police station and also he is not remembering whether they have given acknowledgment of the complaint and also taken note of the fact that notice was given on 11.01.2018 to pay the tax and complaint was registered after more than 11 months. Hence, did not believe the contention of the petitioner and P.W.1 clearly admits the vehicle clearance certificate, address proof, fitness certificate RC and insurance policy and photos are obtained by him and there is no hurdles in producing the same before the Court and taking note of material, particularly Ex.P1- ‘B’ Register extract, which discloses the name of this petitioner and that too, vehicle was registered in the year 2005 and notice was given in 2018 and having considered all these material, confirmed the Judgment of the Trial Court. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to produce the documents and even though in the cross-examination of P.W.1-RTO Inspector elicited answer with regard to the production of the documents, but the fact that vehicle stands in the name of the accused is not in dispute, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3345 CRL.RP No. 1475 of 2024 since ‘B’ Register Extract is produced before the Trial Court and also contend that an opportunity has to be given. 7. Having perused the order sheet which is placed before the Court, it clearly discloses that the accused appeared before the Trial Court in 2019 itself and case was disposed of in 2023 and the contention that no opportunity is given cannot be accepted, when P.W.1 was examined and thereafter, an application was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and the same was rejected and even after rejection of the same also, an opportunity to address the argument was given and heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and thereafter disposed of the matter. Apart from that, even though opportunity was given to lead defence evidence, he examined himself as D.W.1, but not placed any documents before the Court. Hence, the very contention that not given opportunity cannot be accepted. 8. Having considered the order sheet placed before the Court and the sentence imposed is only fine and the said fine is also not paid, I do not find any ground to admit the petition. This Court also comes to the conclusion that there is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3345 CRL.RP No. 1475 of 2024 no need to pass any orders on I.A. and fine is imposed, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise and material also placed on record is very clear that notice was issued and he did not give any reply and instead, in an ingenious method, lodged the complaint after 11 months of having acknowledged notice and vehicle was standing in the name of the petitioner from 2005 till issuance of notice. Hence, the contention that the respondent was not the owner cannot be accepted, unless he places any material before the Court. Therefore, not a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. 9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53