BETWEEN 1. (BY SRI SHRIKANT T.FA'I*II;; AEiVOjCATE}'~ (BY "SR1 1+ COTKHINOI, HCGP) IN THE HIGH COUET OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF' AUGUST, 2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMvES'I«I_D'~V.,V CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2126_ *- SMT NASEEMA EANDOISAB SIIER=FYzE3E»._ AGE:6'7 YEARS I. _ " * OCC HOUSEHOLD wORK,__Ie---LO BIJAFUR * ,_ C' A ..'.'FETITIO_fNER 'I'I--I_E STATE OF,1.KA'RI\2;iTAxA I 113/ B FITS FQFI DHARWAD I . TRANSPORT OFFICER _ EAv.gNA'SA1?", HUBLI ...RESPONDENTS . .. CRLZRP NO2126/2009 is FILED U/S397 AND 401 '*«.CR__F.'C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THATTHIS HONELE COURT MAY BE FLEASEI) TO KINDLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3/3/2009 PASSED BY THE W" 2 IST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGES DI-IARWAD SITTING AT HUBLI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL 30/2007'. THIS REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
The petitioner has sought towset iiordjsr
the IAdd1. Sessions Judge, Hub1i,;”in
2. According to thi-f:”—.Ie-arried cotivriisrfi—._,,for3
petitior1er~»accused_,’ the accu_s__é’d,_ was convicted by the
JMFC 1 Court, Hubiifin. Ic;ir:i.N’oLj’?%i’9,/2000 and was
directed.’ to pay J;–4/~’i1 997 to 3 I -3» I 998, further
sentencedIV”h_sr ta pg1;{_ of Rs.},68,000/-, in default to
.«vw.A_§indV_-sirgo for”–6….II10nths. Before the I Add}. Sessions
I’–..AJuId’ge,j sitting at Hubli, an application under
section 39Ii(i1i.}* to (4) of Cr.P.C. came to be filed and the
fsamei xzveis; dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed in the
A’ “:é.pvpIé’a«I, this revision petition is filed.
W
3
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the
Government Pleader
4. The petitioner had VV.p’tl»._l*fi1ed
W.P.No.46139/2004(MV–‘l’AX) before the
at Bangalore challenging them» 0rd.e’r”‘=
Commissioner for Transport regardinganon?»payment*—of’*tax
in respect of vehicle beariné “registration
for the period betweenp__1.1.199t3ito_ vsfhich came
to be dismissed. A”ccor.di–ng§fitoilhtihel-learned counsel
petitionelrfthe;petitionlerl”intends”to demonstrate that the
vehicle ilWas.. ,:was not road worthy and the
Vehic1e_pWas°no_t in’;us’e_, such, not liable to pay tax. He
,.¢f1,trthe’r i.$1.1l3IIlitS lthatdpefore the Magistrate she could not
epiicidiicdthevildoeuments relevant to prove the non-use of
the therefore was convicted by the Magistrate.
the application was filed before the Sessions
in the appeals, same came to be rejected.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the
W
4
petitioner, the matter ought to have been remitted back to
the Magistrate for consideration afresh on merits.
5. Per contra, learned Government_~~.Pleader
referring to the dismissal of
submitted that already the petitioner basil”
order of this court which has
the petitioner has failed to avail.. the ieXen1ptivo_n’:._as’ ‘per the” i
Government Notification NAo—-.§i.IL’–,/95/TIl\/l”l’/–7T(‘l) dated
11.9.1980 which has of the owner
to decl.f-the”itl1eiiinon:3§i;i’se’of ‘the ‘lifehiicle in Form No.30 with
necessarjr lees documents of the vehicle to
obtain. exem”pti_Von_c-«f Therefore, he submits that the
V’ “c.assi:r,di’ the petitionefshould not be entertained.
V – v- petition what is being noticed is that
the Viorayerisicilthe petitioner is that the matter may be
Vi°~.,,_”remanded. by allowing her to produce the documents
the learned Magistrate to demonstrate that the
W
5
vehicle was not in use. The requirement as per the
Notification is that the non–use of the vehicle ought to
have been intimated immediately just prior to the non~use
of the vehicle by paying the required fee. Admittved’ly,i*-the
petitioner has not made any such appliicatioifnil
exemption. _
7. Hence, in order io_V”gi.Ve Voppo1=tu’nityVVVt’o them
petitioner to contest the maitteifiu since the..Hrnatter has
already been dismissedl”in_r and based on
the grieVan’ce tliel”petitioner, it is inevitable
for the pietitioneritoi’:_diepo:sit.:ithe tax Within six months and
if such arno11ntt»_i,s deposited, the petitioner shall be
‘entitled to p–rxoduce”the documents before Magistrate and
iiiconteist ” Or else, the order of the Sessions
Judge the application shall stand confirmed.
8: Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay
A p:.taX’–W_ithin six months, in View of the order of this Court
W
6
for the period between 1.4.1997 and 31.3.1998 and on
such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to produce the
documents and contest the matter before the learned
Magistrate.
9. With the above observations«,~–~tii:e..:”feVisiofi’~.
petition stands disposed of.
IUDGE
vrp/–