IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2009
BEFORE _
THE E-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE JAYYAD
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7=566_/Ié(.iv0?3AL_ " 4'
BETWEEN
1. SRLMALLIKARJUN vEERAPPAIINA--.AN.OAD1
AGE:-45 YEARS ' 5 V.
R/A PATTADKAL, TQ:BADAMII._f* _
DIST: BAGALKOTE . j' --'";-..v.PETI'?I'IONER
(BY SR1 MF:f;ii'I"V\EV{U'1\YE.:£}!_V\Y«":fjI{VXTI§EI' 'E.ANOI.,"'AEVOcATE)
AND
V " R /E ETSfREG.I_ONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
' EAOALKOTIII. AV ' ...RESPONDENT
,___(BY SR1. ‘I*I.’I~I.t}O’*I%I{I1IVINDI, I-ICGP)
2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U /S482 CR.P.C BY
THEIADXIOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
_HON’I3LE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
I PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. J.M.F.C.
fa} )
5;I,(1/
BAGALKOT IN CRL. MISC. NO. =45/2009 AND ALSO ‘THE
ORDER DATED 29/6/2009 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 319 OF THE CRIMINAL F’ROCEDURE*CO_D–E
AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION BY ALLOWING THE~~PR_g:$EIIT
PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON TIIIs..s
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; A j ‘
oRoagm_
This petition is by ,.the ace-used. ‘facing ‘prosechtion for
offences punishabie undeirdthe Section 12(1) of
Karnataka Motor 1 in the matter
relating to the purview of
Section During the proceedings
before the an application under Section
319 of the Trial Court to summon the
_VVperson_§’narned in ..the application as the accused to face the
faced the charge. By the impugned order,
has rejected the application, against
I I _which=he is in the present petition.
25. The facts not disputed are: The petitioner is the
‘owner of the motor vehicie bearing registration No.KA29/2203.
3
His name is entered as the registered owner in the registration
certificate. The Regional Transport Officer, Bagalkot found that
the road tax payable in respect of the user of the said yehicle
and the cess as envisaged under Sections 3 and_4v-4_f”0uff’~»the
Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was no_t-§i__paidi.’Vi’g:’—-
issuance of notice, the RegionalgHTransp’ort*– has”
proceeded against the petitioner f0ri’»the:_’offe-nce iSe_cti:on
12(1) of the Act. Both the’: petitioners ghaVeli’i.Vn1,oved
application under Section 319 o’f.yCr,pP.C. also not in
dispute that the Trial hasnot “and no evidence has
been recorded. Provisions ‘l3=1l9’*:ii;inidoubtediy would
be attrativiitedi course of any enquiry, or triai of,
an offence, it appears evidence that any person not
being the acclusgedihasi’coi*st’1’n1itted any offence for which such
if V’ ~p_ersoin’couldV._be triedtogether with the accused, the Court may
“proceed lagainstxisuch person for the offence which he appears
to have cornrniittned;
if?) Where such person is not attending the Court,…..
itt av
3. Therefore, Section 319 of Cr.P.C. would be
applicable only when through the evidence on record-;jlth.e*«fl*rial
Court notices that the evidence shows some oth_er–« ‘
committed any offence for which suc_h…persoI_iHshotildllbelltriedll
along with the accused. That stage, ha”s=iV1otii».cornle.
because the petitioner applicant-iilcontenlds that theui’
vehicle to the person named in application and he was
required to pay tax is no–«..,<§rouri_d to.l.g"rant.l's1;ch afreiief. The
application was wholly II1l'S.C.O:l'1C6iV"'fid~._aIlld. the same has
been rejected. l 'I
4. lnoVl,51i_:1eri::t.’liln –tjvhel_’appiicaHtion. Accordingly, the
same is confirmed’;
Sd/-
JUDGE
