IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD _ _ DATED THIS THE 25?" DAY OF AUGUST, 20O9V_V BEFORE A'WH»']. THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE HULLB/1ADI1.'O';'E?X?yIESH.VV u CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.,?2 'IT'S :2 7 BETWEEN 1. SMTNASEEMABANDGISA1§I:SH_ERVPYADE1'I' 1 AGE:67 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK-,_ R50 EJIIAINIR x_ A ' ' '.~:§.'.:RETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIxA"NI'j;::T..:§>.ATIL,€A'DvOCATE;--------f AND 1. THE ' STATE 'OF' I--%;ARN--ATAKA R/B ITS-..P.?.D}£ARWA33 . A12. _~FYEGIONALHVTRANSFORT OFFICER _ 'NAVANA€}&AR, HUELI .ARESPONDENTS
(EY SRI R H;:GO”TkH1NDI, HCGP)
‘”C.RI_,,R15 V NO2129/2009 is FILED U/S397 AND 401
3:i,”v’A”–._VVCR.P.C BY’ THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
– _ ..f}’HAT«-.ITHIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO KINDLY
SETASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3/3/2009 PASSED BY THE
IST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE DI-IARWAD SITTING AT’
I-IUBLI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL 33/2007.
THIS REVISION PETITION Is COMING ON EQ_IE2:I}*’II\’AL
DISPOSAL THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE _
ORDER A
The petitioner has sougIfn_t”~.1;o set of
the I Addl. Sessions Judge, in
2. According to” for the
petitioner–aO.ot1IsecI;: Sitzfisiiiiiiiconvicted by the
JMFC O}ok,N¢5.I335/1999 and was
directecI7-to’– to 30-6-1996, further
sentenced Ih.e.V1I~ ,toI’ of Rs.35,000/–, in default to
.-I».InndefgoE foIr””6_I_’_z__1_or.’1ths. Before the I Addl. Sessions
sitting at I-‘lubli, an application under
mics 3II9.’.IIi{j_1I).e1’Ito (4) of Cr.P.C. came to be filed and the
Isarne weIs;_ dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed in the
this revision petition is filed.
W”
petitioner, the matter ought to have been remitted back to
the Magistrate for consideration afresh on merits. T
5. Per contra, learned —G’o”v–erninentj’i’-7’Plea~der’*;
referring to the dismissal of
submitted that already the
order of this court which has meinitioned that
the petitioner has failed to as per the
Government Notification;A_’AiV’77(1) dated
11.9.1980 wh:?.’chii’:,hals” part of the owner
to declareivtthe vehiclie in Form No.30 with
necessary docurnents of the vehicle to
obtain ex_evn1ptii’o’nV_Viof Therefore, he submits that the
of”Vth’e apetitioner shoiild not be entertained.
In thisiipetition what is being noticed is that the
.i_.i’.fj;prayer of” vvthe petitioner is that the matter may be
by allowing her to produce the documents
iitiibeforei the learned Magistrate to demonstrate that the
W
is
vehicle was not in use. The requirement as per the
Notification is that the non~use of the vehicle-‘jou’ghtv.,4to
have been intimated immediately just prior to:
of the vehicle by paying the require’d»–«fee.«’_: the it
petitioner has not made any u’jsu.ch applicatio:_i’~–.,forVV
exemption.
7. Hence, in to the
petitioner to the matter has
already petition and based on
the thewpetitioner, it is inevitable
for the the tax within six months and
if such arnountcis deposited, the petitioner shall be
to producellthel documents before Magistrate and
lcorigestee Or else, the order of the Sessions
— Judig»e:_lrej_ectinlgl.the application shall stand confirmed.
V Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay
it ‘taxdwithin six months, in View of the order of this Court,
We
6
for the period between 1.4.1996 and 30.6.1996 and on
such deposit, the petitioner is entitied to produce the
documents and contest the matter before the learned
Magistrate.
9. With the above observations,
petition stands disposed of.
vrp/ –