( 1 ) PETITIONER is common in all these revision petitions. He is the registered owner/rc holder in respect of the vehicles MYS 1723. He came to be prosecuted in all these cases for failure to pay tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ('act' for short) for several quarters ranging from 1-5-1982 to 31-1-1986. In all the said cases, he has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine equivalent to tax for one quarter, in default to under SI for three months. His appeals have come to be dismissed. He has now approached this Court under Section 397, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) THE first ground urged by Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that all complaints were barred by time and the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence concerned in view of Section 468, Cr. P. C. occurring in Chapter XXXVI, Cr. P. C. Inthis regard, provisions of the Karnataka Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1981 (Act 10 of 1982) needs to be referred to. Section 2 of the said Act reads thus :"2. Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 not to apply to certain offences.-Nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) shall apply to,- (i) any offence punishable under any of the enactments specified in the Schedule; or (ii) any other offences which under the provisions of that Code, may be tried along with such offences,and every offence referred to in Clause (i) or Clause (ii) may be taken cognizance of by the Court having jurisdiction as if the provisions of that Chapter were not enacted. "schedule to the said Act specified at Item 5, the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957 ). Plea of bar of limitation, thus, is not available.

( 3 ) SRI Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned counsel for the petitioner, next contended that the vehicle was not in use during the relevant period, same having been left in the garage for repairs. On facts, it is found that not only that there was no proper intimation to the authorities concerned about non-use of the vehicle, but that, there was no satisfactory evidence with regard to the vehicle having been left in the garage, and that, on the contrary, there was evidence with regard to the vehicle having been found plying on roads and having been checked. In fact, it is pointedly referred to as to how, even the petitioner admitted his liability to pay tax and prayed for time.

( 4 ) SECTION 3 (1) of the Act inter alia provides for levying of tax on motor vehicles suitable for use on roads as specified in Part-A of the Schedule to the Act. Explanation to the said sub-section (1) of Section 3 provides that a motor vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current shall, for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads. Section 4 of the Act inter alia provides that the tax levied under Section 3 shall be paid in advance by the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle, for a quarter, half-year or year, at his choice, within fifteen days from the commencement of such quarter, half-year of year, as the case may be. Section 7 of the Act provides for claiming refund of tax in certain situations. Section 12 (1) (a) inter alia provides that whoever as a registered owner or otherwise has possession of or control over any motor vehicle liable to tax under this Act without having paid the amount of the tax, then, he 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 the sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle. It also provides that the amount of any tax due shall be recoverable as if it were a fine.

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that the tax for the concerned period had not been paid. There is also no dispute that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document