Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1974 DIGILAW 37 (MAD)

M/s. Meckenzies Ltd. v. The State of Mysore

1974-01-29

C.HONNIAH

body1974
Order.- This revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against the accused under section 12 (i) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for contravention of section 4 of the Act. 2. The admitted or proved facts are these: The accused had to pay quarterly tax for the period ending with 31st December, 1967, for the vehicle bearing No. MRS. 8724 (renumbered as MYL. 6407) to the Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum. The last date for payment was 15th January, 1968. That was a holdiay. So, he had to pay the tax on 16th January, 1968. On that day, he deposited the quarterly tax amount of Rs. 800 in State Bank of India, Gokah Branch at 10-30 a.m. to the credit of the Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum. He requested the Bank to transfer that amount telegraphically to the State Bank of India at Belgaum. The Bank at Gokak sent a telegram to their counterpant at Belgaum intimating the fact of the accused having deposited the amount. That telegram was received by the Bant at Belgaum after banking hours. The accused also sent a telegram to the Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum at about 11-30 a.m. from Gokak intimating him the fact of his having deposited the amourt towards the quarterly tax. The amount was adjusted to the account of the Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum on 20th January, 1968. After four years, the Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum, made a complaint to the Court alleging that the accused had not paid the tax in respect of the vehicle in question within time. The Courts below held that the amount credited by the accused as stated above was not sufficient compliance of rule 11 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’. 3. Rule 11 of the Rules reads: "Payment ow hto be made:- (1) In the City of Bangalore and other places where there are treasury sections in the office of the Regional Transport Officers, payment of tax may be made in the Office of the Regional Transport Officer concerned, in cash or by crossed cheque on any local bank or by bank draft or by money order. * * * * It is clear from this rule that payment of tax in respect of the vehicle in question may be made to the Regional Transport Officer at Belgaum in cash or by a crossed cheque of any local bank or by a bank draft or by money order. The essence of this rule is that the tax must be paid in one of the modes provided. The last date for payment was 16th January, 1968. The accused in this case has paid the tax on 16th January, 1968 in cash in the State Bank of India at Gokak and got it transferred telegraphically to the State Bank of India at Belgaum to be credited to the account of the Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum. Exhibit P-5 is the challan for having paid the tax at Gokak. That shows that the money was paid by the accused to the bank to the account of the Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum. It may be that this amount was really taken credit of subsequently. That is immaterial. Such a payment, in my opinion, is a honest and substantial compliance with the requirements of rule 11 of the Rules. This rule has got to be interpreted in a broad and liberal sense so that it may be applied in a practical manner. 4. In Hangamabai v. Zamsing Deosing1, the question that arose for consideration was whether an application presented by a credit or under section 4 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947, was in time. The facts in that case were these: The creditor wanted to make an application to the Erandol Court in East Khandesh and he sent the application by registered post from Jalgaon on 31st July, 1947. The application reached the Court on 1st August, 1947. The last date for filing the application was 31st July, 1947. The facts in that case were these: The creditor wanted to make an application to the Erandol Court in East Khandesh and he sent the application by registered post from Jalgaon on 31st July, 1947. The application reached the Court on 1st August, 1947. The last date for filing the application was 31st July, 1947. On the question whether the application was in time, their Lordships of the Bombay High Court held in that case that rule 4 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Rules, 1947 constituted a clear authority to the applicant to present an application through registered post, and inasmuch as the applicant was authorised to exercise that particular mode of presentation, the post office was constituted the agent of the Court and the post office received the application from the applicant on behalf of the Court, and, therefore, the application made by the creditor was in time. The ratio of the above decision applies to the facts of this case. 5. In this case also the accused deposited the amount to the State Bank of India on the due date to the account of the Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum, and if the amount was actually taken to the credit later, that does not matter. The bank in this case was the agent of the officer and the bank received the amount on behalf of the officer on the due date and that is a sufficient compliance with rule 11 of the Rules. 6. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused and acquit him.