High Court Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Yusuf Abasaheb Kudache on 26 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Yusuf Abasaheb Kudache on 26 June, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
IN mm HIGH comer ore .
czncuxr maxcx AT nngnfifsifi   "  
nxnsn THIS THE zethzms?    'V

T1-m HOWBLE Mzzfisgsriélézp  

   

cmm11gg§.~_L':a£§*;4 mré "-zwé

BETWEEN:   'A «

       ....APELLAN'I'
{By Sri. 2. i».~§,.;"§~ofl<:}E1i:11tiig' §;-a:'<:.<3.P)g

AND:

Yusuf Abasahab Ktzdaéizs _
Age: Major  --. "
Owner ~ . « ~  
Truck 1T%Q;E\§i*YI $8 I ..
Chikodi,' ;¥}is't_{ Eglgaum, <  ' ...

 %_      msponmzrr
(B§;:*$r3} M. B.'--}{:L}3€aI°11i=;'_"--3%;I0cat&)

 __Th::_s c:1'mE§:1a1-- a:¢p;§=$a1 is filed under Secticazl 39'? R/W.
4~iI;i 1'--«if;:T;«F?.£"§: yrrayiixg in set aside: the cram' dated 4.11.2802

 ;;ass,e§"5y.V,tm..1§ Afldl. S.J., Belgaum in Crm N0.92[2Q{)}.

 '--ce;iifirm._th§: Gzrder passed by the Fri. €..J.(Jr.D:u.} &

 »g;:~s:r*¢3 .<::;h::mé;;"in cc: §'~¥o,933/96 by tbs judgment dated
_  .@'*;?*.2.:3;0 1. 

   appeai sawing cm fer hearing this tiay, the Qeurt
delivamé the following:



EC:

JUDGMENT

The respondent being the registered__§jii:v£:;k:;”– ._§:f jflgck

baaxing N{).MYL 5810 ciid not pay_..m(§_:ia:V -§s}%1i<::i¢"

amounting to Rs.33,890[-

Eefore the Trial Court, 1ff3$_}’}f)I1(1′{“§’I§%_i””€()C}1{ céffiisfifien
that from the year 1990 héfizgis not fiifgiiig –i51is. \fehicie on the
road and siace 19§}€},_it 1:8 1191* «road Worthy conditicn.

The vehicie was seizeci §E§x63<:1i:~t:i:i7$1'x2'jfggéigition Ne. 138/1993,

in ggiééession of the: vehiclé and did

not ' havs c0:;ti*<3':1' ~::§é%er__ Vfihiz .v\i€h§.C3€.

2. VT31s,i_d V iaaifized trial Juiige 0:1 consideratziim caf

the respenégnt/accusad viz”. certified
emter maae in 3.? N0. 138/§3 and the ba31:”fi’
21g11,1996, has hsld iha’: an 1904.199? the

jL was saiizxzd {mm the gossessicn sf resmndentj accused

V’ * éné the vehicic was valusé at Rs.18,{}G€)!~.

3,. The learzmd ‘I’3:*i3i Judgtz having regard 1:0 tha
Comtsnts sf aforestatfié égcvuments has helai that the case

was filed far ficfauit cemmitted in §8f€i}1fiI1;{ of magi tax

av .

/

between 01.06.1991 and 30.11.1995. ‘Th¢::¢5f’:;>fi*éf,jV–.§;fi}::.f;;£:i.zer

of vehicle 01;: 19.4.19??? cannet be_..a»

rsspefident to avoid payment of ro;a;;1 «t§1;>§;._ ‘: ”

4L The ieamed ‘v:J1.; c’1ge”

cf cifences punishable” ” ‘lé_(A1)_ §(A) 3:. (B) f
Karnataka Meter ,/s¢nte11ced him to pay
a fine of .Rs.2,SGG;:.-gfé undcrga simple
Therefore,
appea} No.92] 2001

be;’i:’ore_t_Ah;é’T§’!*v,+%d$.«!, Stfisipns Judge, Belgaum.

_f§’he Vi::.;a§V:’A1:V;ei”,’iV.;311€1ge of tbs First Appellate Ceurt has

..*that v§};ic.1c:: Qf respondent} accused was seizefi in

A’-.._g.P,.::m.–:§a.,;§%93 arising (mi: of O.S.N0.?11f1981. in the

._ mspondantf accussfi was net 3331316 to pay

§. The ifiaffifid Jfidgfi of First Agpeliats Ceuri has 11:):

zxoticed 1″t:<:or::is 'of E.P.N0.133/'93 which were produced; by

accused; As already stated, thfi Eftifhiifiifi was seized from the

pessession 03:" agcuscd on 19,{}4n199'?', The learned Judge sf

3
3&7′ ?\.«u’kf€«£,.,\ ,

:4:

First Agzpaflate Cami has failed to notice t’£1.:~1t 31%:-:A’w&s

filed for default cjrf paymttni of road tax, ‘.

bf3′{‘W€€I1 01.06.1991 and 30; 1.1. _1_’9.Q6_.4

‘?. it is obvious from ‘

Court”, the lsazrned Sessiof:1 s “*~.J11dg£:’ thé
period for which Eh; tax 1§{a_é{‘»nQ”e_»_;3aid§ ‘*«T1’11e_s;3eizer 9f the
vfiljzicie cm s11bseq1ie1:x{‘d;a’E¢ t§r asuf<:;1eva:1t to decide the
case in favour ofvA.Vact.::1:;sed'A& the impugned
jucZgm.e:1t_Vé§;§:1:1;£z3t'_Vbr::V ' 'V
8'. 4' In t.,h.t=: following;

ORDER

{ifiminal Apyeal is acceptsd. The judgmant in C21

, q 2801 an the file of H Adél. Sassions Judge,

AB..€1g&;i111i isl set aside and the judgmefit ix: CC N-:3.933i%

‘*nTdaézézzcexenthefimgggmpc,chmndigxwmgfifi,

Sd/4
IIJIDCEIE

gab/*