ORDER
Mohan Shantana Goudar, J.
1. By the impugned order, the Court below has issued fine levy warrant against the petitioner herein in C.Misc. No. 59/2004 on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the Regional Transport Officer, Davanagere.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without there being any conviction of the petitioner as contemplated under Section 12 (l)(a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short), the recovery proceedings cannot be initiated. Sri Bhavani Singh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the petitioner has to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 12(l)(a) read with 3 and 4 of the Act and only after conviction for the said offences, the recovery proceedings can be initiated.
3. It may be useful to refer to Section 12 of the Act, which reads thus:
KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT 1957: 12. PENALTIES (1) WHOEVER
(a) as a registered owner or otherwise has possession or control of any motor vehicle liable to tax under this Act without having paid the amount of the tax or additional tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of such vehicle, or
(b) delivers a declaration or additional declaration wherein the particulars required by or under this Act to be therein set forth are not fully and truly stated.
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 a sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle; and in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this section with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the tax payable in respect of such vehicle for two quarters and which may extend to a sum equal to twice the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle; and the amount of any tax due shall be recoverable as if it were a fine.
The plain reading of Section 12(l)(a) of the Act makes it clear that the penalty which is really in the nature of fine, shall be recovered, only on conviction of the registered owner or possessor of the vehicle. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner is yet to be tried and consequently, these recovery proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner. The amounts mentioned in the chargesheet filed by RTO cannot be equated to the fine or penalty imposed by the Court. Section 12 of the Act does not confer jurisdiction on the RTO to impose fine. Therefore the Court below cannot recover the amounts disclosed in the chargesheet as arrears of fine. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order is made.
The Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 31.7.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Davanagere in C.Mis. No. 59 of 2004 is set aside. However, the State is at liberty to try the petitioner under Section 3, 4, read with 12(1) of the Act and in the event of his conviction, appropriate steps for recovery of fine can be initiated against him in accordance with law.