Non-payment of tax not a continuing offence.

This revision by the accused-petitioner is directed against the judgment dated 3rd January, 1979 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mudhol, in C.C. No. 865 of 1977 on his file convicting the accused for offences under sections 3 and 4 read with section 12 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 which will hereinafter be called “the Act” and sencencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three days and further directing him to pay a tax of Rs. 2,817.40 within 15 days.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused is the registered owner in possession and control over the tractor and Trailor No. MYJ 3831 and 3832 and that he has failed to pay the tax for the period commencing from 1st July, 1970 to 31st December, 1976 at the quarterly ate of Rs.183.70 in all amounting to Rs.2,817.40. The accused having failed to pay the said tax for every quarter, the Regional Transport Officer, Bijapur, has charge-sheeted the accused for non-payment of the aforesaid quarterly taxes under sections 3 and 4 read with section 12 of the said Act and the charge-sheet was filed on 23rd November, 1977.

3. The defence of the accused is that he had filed an application before the Regional Transport Officer, under section 16(3) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957 and as such he is exempted from the payment of the said tax under the said provision of law and in the above circumstances he has not committed any offences and that he is therefore innocent.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined the Regional Trans-part Officer, P.W.1 and produced 3 documents in support of its case. The accused did not enter into the witness box but, however, filed three documents Exhibits D-1, D-3 in support of his defence. The learned Magistrate after assessing the evidence of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt against the accused, as he has not paid tax even though he was in possession and control over the said vehicle, beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly proceeded to convict him and sentenced him as aforesaid’ The legality, propriety and the correctness of the said judgment is being challenged by the accused in this revision petition.

5. Sri C.M. Desai, learned Advocate for the accused, submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in convicting and sentencing the accused solely relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 without considering the main issue before him viz., that the prosecution of the accused for the aforesaid offences was barred by limitation under section 468, Criminal Procedure Code. Elaborating his contentions, what he submitted was that the offences alleged against the accused are punishable with fine only in which case provisions of section 468(2), Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to the facts of the case with regard to taking cognizance of the offences. The allegations in the charge sheet are that the accused has not paid the taxes payable in respect of the Tractor and Trailor at the quarterly rate of Rs. 183.70 for each quarter from 1st July, 1970 to 31st December, 1976 in all amounting to Rs.2,817.40 and that the tax has to be paid in respect of these two vehicles in advance for each quarter commencing from 1st July, 1970. Therefore as soon as the advance tax is not paid for the specified quarter from 1st July, 1970 immediately after the expiration of the said quarter, the said quarter period is complete and the the next quarter period begins for which again the accused has to pay advance tax for the commencing quarter period. In the above manner if the accused has not paid the advance tax as contemplated under the Act for each quarters then the failure on his part at the end of the quarter completes the said period and also the offence comes to an end and the fresh period for payment of the quarter tax begins. In other words, what he submitted was that failure on the part of