Back
1972 Supreme(Bom) 31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(M. N. Chandurkar J. )
STATE Of MAHARASHTRA (Complainant)
v.
SMT. JAMUNADEVI (Ori Accused) Respondent.
Advocate appeared
For appellant-P. G. Palshikar. Asstt. Govt. Pleader.
For respondent-M. B. Padhye.
The certificate of registration of a transport vehicle is not current after the expiry of the certificate of fitness issued under section 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTIONS 22, 38 - BOMBAY MOTOR VEHICLES TAX ACT, 1958 - SECTIONS 3(2), 16(1) - REGISTRATION OF TRANSPORT VEHICLES - CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS - PRESUMPTION OF USE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was the owner of a transport vehicle that was not used or kept for use in the State during certain periods. The prosecution alleged that she had not paid the tax due under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (the Tax Act) for those periods. The respondent contended that the certificate of fitness issued under section 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act) had expired and that the vehicle had met with an accident and was not in a road-worthy condition during the periods in question.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the respondent under section 16(1)(a) of the Tax Act, holding that the certificate of registration of the transport vehicle was current and that the presumption under section 3(2) of the Tax Act arose against her. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge held that the certificate of registration of the transport vehicle could not be said to have been current after the expiry of the certificate of fitness and that no presumption under section 3(2) of the Tax Act could be drawn against the respondent.
Issues: Whether the certificate of registration of a transport vehicle is current after the expiry of the certificate of fitness issued under section 38 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deeming fiction in section 38(1) of the Act affects the certificate of registration issued under section 22 of the Act. Therefore, a transport vehicle without a valid certificate of fitness is treated as one which has no valid registration. As a result, the presumption that the transport vehicle shall be deemed to have been used or kept for use cannot arise.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the State, upholding the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge. The court also directed that the balance of the amount deposited by the respondent, after deducting the amounts determined by the Additional Sessions Judge, be refunded to her.
2. The defence of the respondent was that the certificate of fitness issued under section 38 of the Act had expired on 8-4-1966 and that the vehicle had met with a serious accident and had ceased to be in a road-worthy condition with effect from 4-4-1966 and that thereafter the vehicle was never used as such.
3. Before the trying Magistrate some documents were filed to show that the vehicle could not have been used and was not in a serviceable condition. The trying Magistrate however found in both the cases that though the certificate of fitness had expired, the registration certificate was not automatically suspended, and the presumption under section 3 of the Tax Act would arise. He also held that the respondent had failed to prove that the vehicle was not serviceable during the period for which the tax was being demanded Thus he convicted the accused of the offence under section 16 (1) (a) of the Tax Act in both the cases and he was made liable to pay the outstanding tax and an equal amount of fine.
4 Against both these judgments of the trying Magistrate the respondent-accused filed appeals. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the provisions of section 38 of the Act, came to the conclusion that the certificate of registration of the transport vehicle in question could not be said to have been current after the expiry of the certificate of fitness and consequently no presumption under section 3 (2) of the Tax Act could be drawn against the respondent. These were the only questions agitated before him, and in view of the findings arrived at Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 1968 which was in respect of the period 1-1-1967 to 31-3·1967 was fully allowed and the other appeal, i. e. Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 1968, was partly allowed because he took the view that the respondent was liable to pay tax having regard to the provis
