IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA CIRCUIT
AT DHARWAD n
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY or g§UGUs*r~2iO;oe9ssifIj "
BEFORE
THE HO§\¥'BLE MR. JL1STF_ICEiVIxT_.vh'KUM.4';§ it
Crimina} Petition No. of
Between:
Doddanaik V
S / o Mullanaik Patii ..
Age: Major _ 44 V _ _ .
Occupation: Agriculture
R/0 Naga110Q--'7-----..
Taluk: Bai1hVonga3=.jt»v_v _ .. Petitioner
(By Sri Sure " Advocate)
And: i it
The gionai """ H
Tran VO'ffi_ccr"~ ' '-
Bailhongal. .. Respondent
(sy. Sri PEI-{.(3:Votkhindi, HCGP}
V Vt.ii'F';:is crirninal petition is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by the
'for the petitioner praying that this Hon'b1e Court
gmay gbe pleased to quash the proceedings in
7C1rl\,VMi_sic.No.188/2005 which is pending on the fiie of the Prl.
. Ci--gi1.iJudge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Bailhongal and etc.
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the
made the following: U
ORDER
The petitioner in this petition isJseeléirigouashingiofthe
proceedings pending before the_:P_rincipal’Civil (J”unioVr’V.g
Division) and JMFC, Bailhongal i1ri€:3._i*;}.\/_Iiscf Nq’;’1–38 ta 2005.
2. The petitioner of the motor
vehicle bearing. that he has
failed to pay Section 3(i) and 4(a) of
the Karnataka Taxation Act, 1957,
proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First
:_.Ci~ass, “”‘”E’h..e…petitioner contends he had sold the
He has informed the RTO on
i the said sale. Therefore, he is not liable to
–«_i.i._:’:..pa_”y’.., tax and therefore, the prosecution is Wholly without
j1.1risd.icti’on and requires to be quashed. Secondly it was
fiylntefnded that the offence is punishable with fine only.
it/i
4. In so far as the contention that the tax is payable»
person in possession of the vehicle and that
had already sold the Vehicle, intimated: the– it it
he was not liable to pay tax is ooncei=ned,_i’
that is a matter which requires ‘trials’
Even otherwise, the intirnation on”23′;v03.2004.
The vehicle is stated to $o1ti_yrlt%;§i.ylg;:2.1o.1998. In
View of the conduot’otyfl1e the said
fact of sale for the said sale is not
evidenced petitioner being the
registered owner of the on 07.01.1999 was liable to
pay possession is liable to pay tax
falllsmwithin the definition of owner, if the
persion pays the tax, the liability of the
registered owner’ ceases. If the person in possession of the
Icloesllnot pay, it is the registered owner who has to pay
“therefore, prima facie as the petitioner was the
“ll”-._pregistered owner, as he did not pay the tax on 07.01.1999,
\x/