ORDER
K. Ramanna, J.
1. All these revision petitions are directed against the common judgment dated 27-2-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madikeri, in Cri. A. Nos. 84 to 90 and 92 to 98 of 2000 whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the judgment dated 23-11-2000 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Madikeri, in C.C. Nos. 40 to 44, 48 and 49 of 1997. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders the revision petitioner-accused 1 has come up with the above revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P.C. mainly on the ground that as per Ex. D. 4, the RTO, Madikeri, has transferred the vehicle in question in the name of the second respondent, therefore the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are illegal and incorrect and liable to be set aside.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.
3. The brief facts of these cases are that the revision petitioner is the original owner of the vehicle bearing No. CNZ 4785 and according to the revision petitioner he entered into an agreement with the respondent 2-accused 2-S.K. Monnappa dated 28-11-1994 for exchanging the vehicles and the criminal cases have been filed against him and the second respondent for offence punishable under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for non-payment of arrears of tax for the period from 1-1-1995 to 30-6-1995 at the rate of Rs. 800/- towards quarterly tax. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the instant cases, himself and S.K. Monnappa entered into an exchange agreement for exchange of vehicles belonging to them earlier to the alleged arrears of quarterly tax for the period from 1-1-1995 to 30-6-1995 therefore he is not liable to pay any tax and the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is totally illegal and incorrect.
Further, it is maintained that Section 9 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 that registered owner or the person who is in possession of the vehicle is liable for conviction for non-payment of quarterly tax. Whereas, in the instant cases the Trial Court convicted both the registered owner as well as the person who was in possession of the vehicle, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and incorrect.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that since this revision petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle has not paid the arrears of quarterly tax for the period from 1-1-1995 to 30-6-1996 and he has not informed the Registering Authority about the exchange/transfer of the vehicle in the year 1994 but same is said to have been informed to the complainant-RTO in the month of March 1997 goes to show that in order to evade the payment of tax a concocted exchange agreement has been entered into between the revision petitioner and the accused 2, therefore the Trial Court has rightly convicted both the revision petitioner as well as accused 2. Hence, the present revision petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the arguments of both parties the points that arises for my consideration and determination is:
(a) Whether the order under revision is perverse, incorrect and illegal?
(b) If so what it calls for interference?
6. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle and the complainant-RTO has filed seven criminal cases against him and accused 2. It is seen that exchange agreement alleged to have been entered into between the revision petitioner and accused 2 on 28-11-1994 but said to have been informed to the complainant-RTO through Lawyer in the month of March 1997. But the records placed on records indicate that neither the revision petitioner nor accused 2 have informed about the so-called exchange agreement entered into between them before filing of the criminal cases against them for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1) and 4 read with Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. While convicting this revision petitioner as well as accused 2 the Trial Court elaborately discussed about the arrears of quarterly tax due by the revision petitioner. In all these 7 cases that the revision petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle was expected to pay a total arrears of tax to the tune of Rs. 5,600/- and penalty of Rs. 1,120/-totalling to Rs. 6,270/-. Since the revision petitioner and accused 2 themselves contended that the revision petitioner is the registered owner and the accused 2 is the owner in possession of the vehicle therefore the Trial Court convicted both the accused in all these seven cases. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the accused 2 has not filed any revision petition challenging the orders passed by both the Courts. In the case of Vijayakumar Mane v. The Regional Transport Officer, Dharwad and Ors., 2000(2) Kar. L.J. 78 : ILR 2000 Kar. 754 wherein this Court has held that;
“The position that emerges from a combined reading of Sections 4 and 9 of the Act is thus;
(a) A registered owner of a motor vehicle, or a person having possession and control of a motor vehicle, is liable to pay the current motor vehicle tax, as also all arrears of motor vehicle tax relating to the period prior to the date he became the registered owner or obtained possession and control of the vehicle.
(b) A person who was a registered owner of a motor vehicle, but who is no longer a registered owner, continues to be liable for payment of motor vehicle tax, due upto the date when he ceased to be a registered owner. Similarly, a person who had possession and control of a motor vehicle (but who is no longer in possession and control) continues to be liable for payment of motor vehicle tax, due upto the date when he ceased to have possession and control.
(c) In other words, every registered owner is liable to pay the taxes due during the period when he was or is the owner and also all arrears due for the period prior to the date on which he became the registered owner.
Similarly, every person who obtains/takes possession and control of the motor vehicle, is liable to pay the taxes due during the period when he was or is in possession and control and also all arrears due for the period prior to the date on which he obtained possession and control of the motor vehicle”.
7. It is not the contention of the revision petitioner that before initiating the criminal proceedings complainant-RTO has not complied with Section 8A of the Act and therefore it could be inferred that the complainant authority after complying with the provisions of Section 8A of the Act initiated criminal proceedings against him and accused 2. In fact, the contents of the alleged exchange agreement Ex. P. 5 has not been proved by the revision petitioner either by examining himself or examining other attesting witnesses. So the delay in not informing about the so-called exchange agreement entered into between the parties is fatal to the defence of the revision petitioner and accused 2.
8. Section 9 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act reads as under:
“9. Liability to pay arrears of tax.–(1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before having paid the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax to the Taxation Authority.
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the liability of the person, who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of the vehicle, to pay the said tax”.
9. Considering the materials placed on record it could be said that since the revision petitioner has not informed about the so-called exchange agreement of the vehicles immediately between himself and accused 2 before 1-1-1995 and the vehicle in question has not been transferred in the name of the accused 2 as admitted by the revision petitioner. In the case of G.V. Appanna v. Regional Transport Officer, Belgaum and Ors., 1980(2) Kar. L.J. 121 this Court had an occasion to deal with such type of cases, wherein it has been held that for collection of arrears of tax either from a person to whom the vehicle has been transferred or proposed to be transferred or from the previous owner, the choice is left to the taxing officer to choose one or the other but the liability is on both parties i.e., present and the previous owner.
10. This Court, in a recent decision in the case of Vijayakumar Mane, supra, held a registered owner of the motor vehicle, or a person having possession and control of motor vehicle is liable to pay the current motor vehicle tax as also all the arrears of motor vehicle tax relating to the period prior to the date he became the registered owner or obtained possession and control of the vehicle. A registered owner continues to be liable for payment of motor vehicle tax due upto the date when he ceases to be registered owner. Similarly, a person who had possession and control of a motor vehicle continues to be liable for payment of motor vehicle tax due upto the date when he ceases to have possession and control. Further, it has been held that the liability of the registered owner and the person in possession and control of the vehicle is joint and several.
11. In the instant case, the revision petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and his primary obligation is to pay the arrears of the motor vehicle tax therefore he cannot contend that respondent 2 who is in possession of the vehicle is alone liable to pay the arrears of motor vehicle tax.
12. In view of the aforesaid decision and in view of the Trial Court is right in convicting this revision petitioner for the charges levelled against him and the respondent 2. It is submitted that the respondent 2 has not filed any revision or appeal against the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court therefore the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and convicting both of them is not correct. But in the instant case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vijayakumar Mane, supra, the liability of the registered owner and the owner in possession and control are jointly and severally liable for their act of non-payment of arrears of motor vehicle tax for the period 1-1-1995 to 30-6-1995.
13. Therefore, considering the judgment of this Court it could be said that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are well-reasoned and does not call for interference. Further, it could be said that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are neither perverse nor incorrect Therefore, viewed from any angle, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below. Hence, all these revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, these revision petitions are dismissed.