IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 2"] day of February, 2010
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI --;I?:§iZtII§Sfi ._
Criminal Revision Petitions 582 / 2006 c/:70
581/2006 " ' " A ' " "
Between: V
Sri Chand Pasha, 50 yrs
S/0 Ismaii Khan. R/21 # 4
Hens Road. 11 Cross . L 1, _ .0
Slxivajilmgaxi. Bangalore . Z " V Pctitionex'
(By C M Kempegowda'
And:
Steztc 0f'K21::'V;1z2takz1 > .
RTO B'z'.I1gal0re . Rcspondem
{By Sri Av Ra:n'ak1-ish:;g,'V_GP§,_S
'V - _ "'Ti{e§e*v.Re'0a.sion PeLit'i;$;§s are filed under 3,397 r/w 5.401 of the cr.1>c
"pm-v:ng':q ;se;1'as-;'cie_':he order dated 7.2.2005 in cc 5559/05 (cc r0739/200: );
CC ~s5'05z«20(>;s"('_C_C'~i0é45/01 ); cc 5504/05 (cc 10744/2000; cc 5558/2005
_ (CC 1'04738x,;t)(:.y0).1;w' CC 5500/2005 (cc t()7-40/200E); CC 5561/?.0()5 (CC
£0,713}/20O'}V) Lmd CC 5563/2005 (CC E0743/2001) by the Chief Meiropoiizzln
4' Mv:xgiSCtfa.Ee, Bzmgaiore, etc.
3%"
T-J
These Revision Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the-.»Cc)11rt
made the following:
ORDER
These revisions have been filed ag;-1in.ai_t thee-o1jde:”‘z)’i”‘I-l1e”-lezérhegl GE-mt’
Metropolitan. ‘Bang__-.no1~e in cc 5559;:-0__u5; c.*5:i”9.
cc 5558/2005; cc 5560/2005; CC 55’e.1_’}:::):)5 3:. 55633/2.()o5 (CC
W743/2001) and also the c)rde:;._b”t’..the ‘Sessim1.s Bangalore
in Crl.A 2&8/2005; Cr1.A :>.24/2QQ5_v:T-Cy.A’V2:312eiis;’.I’§:s:L1A 2:7/2005; Crl.A
219/2005; Cr}.A 22(;r2es}5:9l’ana 2:22/*2o<:§5;?."~ by
In g.b11neelie1§.witlfjbe e:t:'eS regis_Ie%'ed for the alleged violz1ti011 of the
provisions u1':de1"«the KEl1'.l'a:-i"["d1V£Vi’M6’i!f)1′,V6hiC]CS Act i.e., Regulation 3 & 3. rfw
S.E’.Z[‘E)(a:)._ for ddetlmh in”V-110i’-._1I1iil{i1ag payment of qua1’Ierly tax for differem
‘V”pe;’i()d*§e.:\b~()::_11ff1c:r1.pi11g ‘£ro;v;v:….;«.«5.1999 [0 3l.’7.t999;_ l.H.2U(‘)U L0 3E.t.200l:
“‘-1.8.2600._u;.._§%*1_;1e.:20–r)(); 1.2.1999 to 30.49999; 1.8.l999 I0 3k.10.1999;
L i H to and t.5.2()00 to 3E.7.2UO0. cases have been registered
by the ;)1’Qseeu1.in§._:_ agency \:i7,., Regional} Hamsport Officers’. Bangzllore Elazst.
mane: was eomested before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court.
–..,’8an’_ga10re.
The defense of the petitioner is that, the vehicle was not being used on
road rather, it was tinder repair and was not fit for road use. Howevei’. taking
a contention that it was not intimated to the RTO authorities in adi.za’i:ee’;-_i’Rs.37;8″8t’)/;’,~:’Qitit’lied’gi’m;;id”
that, to impose fine amount exceeding Rs:;’5,0C{{)/1. the’»Magi’$traitc;°~l1’a§Tim
jurisdiction, the matter was i*e.mitted”to*the Chief l\«’iLV3[t’C)”§i)L()’liA~*.?l’i1../,MVagiSIt’aI61 ‘
Bangalore. However, the Chief Meti’opoliEan Mttgistiztte _has iIi?lp()Sti(l equal
penalty of Rs'<.l8,9{)U/~ along w*i.thf'the'tax;_amot:.nt.ing~to Rs.i8,900/- and also
default sentence to t1i3Cl_€I'ao siinnle im 1'-iseiiniieiiit Vf'(;~-ii oiie ear. . The said
.. V. t .V P _ K» V. 5'
order has been el1af.leng{ee§ betote t3lieVVXX_lVl}._Addl;~-Sessions judge. Bangaiore
who in turn. COitl"tt'tVT}€i(l. theetfide':_jo't'—t_lie CMM, Bangalore in imposing penalty
while disiiiissiiig the. Z1}V§'§3€L'1'iS'llJ a"l–!._tl1e.~;e eases. Against the said order. these
tevisio1i.;»_' ltave been ;:;:t.e_t'ei'red. I
i.§."i'itlie'l'..eoiiteiitionof the petitioner in all these cases that the
iinet1ijnenti;;:fiiave i not'; been considered; evidence has not been property
appreciated and jaclinission made by PW i & 2 has not been considered. it
'iajcontendedfthat the vehicle was destroyed on 30.1.1999 as such. the vehicle
"w"a:=,.Vnotfnsed on the road as it was not in a running condition. Aeeortliiigly.
3%"
counsel has sought Elia’ setting aside the order of conviction and seiitetice
passed.
On perusal of the orders passed by the trial eourtfiijasiiwelVi’–..a’sl~tlieo_
appellate court. it is noticed ihat the deteiise of the t1cc”t1′;x’ed::~..i’eiga¢:*d’ing the.
vehicle being not in use when the authorities iwent-Atn_. serve i[l}.€V’11()lil7,’:€’3—,O!1’~:.i:1i}’I3
and it was not in a lit condition to use,;ba.s_ been epiiied as iati”:tft,er thoigght ,
the appellate judge. it is also opined tha’t=..the. t_=iect1sed.had’ ‘l’aile’d to produce
cogent and convincing evidenc:e””t.o pfove Vtliiat thewrehicie in question was
scrapped Inuch prior tothe deinandarid Marin the prosectitioii has discharged
its burden and aiso szsued a”cert’ihcate oi I’f;”!S[1’dI1()I1 as oer S3 & 4
of the Acti;,o_the_ ciefeins’;”~ta§96′
he intimated to the authorities concerned in ndvaisiee. In the absence of any
such material being produced. learned Magistrate, rightly convicted and
sentenced the accused which order was upheld by the appeil-ate
initial burden was on the accused and he was required__ to iGi’ii?i_%I1’53 ‘”.i§’1_6’-
cosicerned 21utliorit.ie.T1.£tkC_ pa-iyment as per the
Sd/-
JUDGE