Nesargi, J.-These two appeals are filed by the State against the orders of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (I Court), Bangalore City in C.C. Nos. 55 and 54 of 1973 respectively, acquitting the respondent, who was the accused in both the cases, of the offence punishable under section 12 (1) (d) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We consider it appropriate to pass a common judgment as the point involved in these two appeals is the same.

2. The accused is the registered owner of vehicles bearing Nos. MYA 162 and MYA 252. The quarterly tax of these two vehicles was due by 15th October, 1971 in regard to the quarter ending 31st October, 1971. The accused paid the concerned tax on 5th November, 1971 instead of 15th October, 1971. The prosecution has therefore, contended that the accused had committed an offence punishable under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act.

3. The learned Magistrate has, on the basis of the material produced before him, found that the concerned transport authority had taken action against the accused to levy penalty by way of composition and that the accused took up the matter with the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and secured a stay order in-regard to the levy of penalty. He, in view of these facts, concluded that under section 12 (2) of the Act, the accused is deemed to be acquitted. He has observed that the prosecution instituted against the accused was nothing but harassment of the accused in view of penalty-recovery proceedings initiated against him already.

4. The learned State Public Prosecutor contended that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law as the learned Magistrate has ignored the scheme of the Act and the scheme and ambit of Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

5. Section 12 (2) of the Act clearly lays down that it shall be lawful for any person who is accused of an offence under subsection (1) to pay as penalty, in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed time and to the prescribed officer by way of composition for the offence with which he is accused, such sum as may be prescribed. This part of section 12 (2) of the Act reads to show that even when a prosecution is going on against the accused, it shall be lawful for such an accused to get composition effected by paying the prescribed penalty. The consequences of such composition are narrated in the latter part of section 12 (2) of the Act. That part reads to show that when such composition takes place by payment of penalty in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed time (i) the concerned accused, if in custody, shall be set at liberty; and (ii) if any proceedings in any criminal Court have been instituted against such person in respect of such offence, the composition shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal and no further criminal proceedings shall be taken against such person in respect of such offence. Hence the scheme of section 12 (2) of the Act is clearly to make a person who is accused of such an offence entitled to get the offence compounded by paying the prescribed penalty in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed time and get relief as provided in the section. It does not lay down a principle in law that unless and until the composition fails, prosecution cannot be launched.

6. Rule 29 of the Rules makes it incumbent on the transport authority mentioned therein to inform a person who is accused of an offence punishable under section 12(1) (a) of the Act that it shall be lawful for him as provided under subsection (21 of section 12 to pay as penalty sum prescribed by way of composition for the offence with which he is accused, within seven days from the date of service of such notice. What should be the quantum of penalty is prescribed in the same rule. It is also provided in Rule 29 (B) that the penalty prescribed may be reduced with approval of the Commissioner in any case. Rule

Click Here to Read the rest of this document