Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 274 (KAR)

SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2015-03-11

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2015
Order Petitioner is a financier in respect of a commercial vehicle bearing registration No.KA.17/7744 and the respondent No.2 being the borrower, entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement and a hypothecation entry was made in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. It appears that the respondent No.2 has not cleared the motor vehicle tax for the period 01.08.2006 to 31.01.2008 amounting to Rs. 1,58,400/- and also the period from 01.02.2008 to 31.07.2008 amounting to Rs. 52,800/. The Regional Transport Officer, Davanagere having demanded the said tax and the respondent No.2 having not remitted the tax, complaints under S.200 of Cr.P.C., having been filed, cognizance was taken and C.C.Nos.3014/2007 and 1828/2008 were registered and process was issued to the respondent No.2 and also the petitioner. The respondent No.1/complainant, has sought conviction of the respondent No.2, under S.12(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) and for recovery of the tax due as per S.12(1) of the Act read with Rule 28 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957. Seeking quashing of the proceedings of the said cases, pending on the file of the JMFC., (II Court), Davanagere, these petitions were filed. 2. Sri M.J. Alva, learned advocate, contended that the petitioner is a mere financier and not being the registered owner or person having possession or control of the vehicle, having no liability to pay the motor vehicle tax, the complaints filed being not maintainable, taking of cognizance and issue of process being illegal, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. He submitted that these petitions being identical to Crl.P.No.3567/2003 (M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Davanagere), decided on 29.01.2009, are liable to be allowed and the impugned proceedings, in so far as they relate to the petitioner, be quashed. 3. Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned HCGP, on the other hand contended that the petitioner having not replied to the notices served and the respondent No.2 also having not remitted the motor vehicle tax, having the liability to pay the tax and there being contravention of the provisions of the Act, was sought to be proceeded with, under S.12 of the Act. Learned HCGP further submitted that the petitioner should face trial and establish that it was not in possession or control of the vehicle and as such, is not liable to pay the arrears of tax. 4. Learned HCGP further submitted that the petitioner should face trial and establish that it was not in possession or control of the vehicle and as such, is not liable to pay the arrears of tax. 4. Considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Issue involved in these petitions lies with a narrow compass. The issue for consideration is; “Whether the financier which has entered into Hire Purchase Agreement, can be proceeded against for realization of motor vehicle tax payable by the registered owner? 5. S.2(1)(f) of the Act contains definition of the term “Registered Owner”. S.3 provides for levy of motor vehicle tax. S.4 provides that tax levied under S.3 of the Act, shall be paid in advance by the registered owner or the person having possession or control of the motor vehicle. S.9 relates to the liability to pay arrears of tax. S.12 is with regard to the penalties. 6. S.3(1) of the Act confers right upon the State to levy tax on all the motor vehicles which are suitably designed for use on the road. Explanation, thereunder, contains deeming provisions and its effect is that as long as the registration certificate of the vehicle is current, it must be deemed that the vehicle is suitable for use on the road. A combined reading of Ss.4 and 9 of the Act, makes it clear that the registered owner of the motor vehicle or a person having possession or control of the motor vehicle are liable to pay the motor vehicle tax, be it current or arrears. 7. In the complaints filed before the Court below, it has been alleged that the petitioner herein being the financier, had taken over possession of the vehicle and as such, being in control of the vehicle, having not informed the nonuser and obtained exemption under S.16 of the Act and being liable to pay the motor vehicle tax, did not pay the same and hence, it is liable to be penalised. 8. Both the complaints filed, make it clear that the blanks in the printed form was filled up and presented before the Magistrate. Nowhere in the complaint/s, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was in possession or control of the vehicle, during the relevant period. The Magistrate, without any application of mind, has mechanically taken the cognizance and issued the process as against the petitioner. 9. Nowhere in the complaint/s, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was in possession or control of the vehicle, during the relevant period. The Magistrate, without any application of mind, has mechanically taken the cognizance and issued the process as against the petitioner. 9. In Crl.P.No.3567/2003, registered owner having failed to pay the motor vehicle tax, Regional Transport Officer, called upon the petitioner to pay the tax and the payment having not been made, Regional Transport Officer, filed chargesheet alleging contravention of Ss.3 and 4 punishable under S.12(1) of the Act. Finding that the documents and the chargesheet show, that Shabeer Ali was shown as the registered owner and he having entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with the petitioner and from the chargesheet it becoming clear that the financier had not seized the vehicle and was not in control and possession of the vehicle, it was held that the chargesheet and the documents annexed thereto, do not constitute an offence punishable under S.12(1) of the Act and consequently, in so far as it related to the petitioner, the impugned proceeding was quashed. These petitions are identical to the said case. 10. The learned Magistrate, without perusal of the complaint and the annexed documents, has mechanically taken cognizance and has issued process against the petitioner. The arbitrariness and illegality on the part of the Magistrate is writ large. As the petitioner was not in possession or control of the vehicle during the relevant periods and as the respondent No.2 continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle and also in possession of the vehicle during the two periods, noticed supra, prosecution of the petitioner is illegal and is nothing but abuse of process of law and also of the Court. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned proceedings, i.e., C.C. Nos. 3014/2007 and 1828/2008, on the file of JMFC (II Court), Davanagere, in so far as they relate to the petitioner, is quashed. Both the Criminal petitions are allowed.