Disposed¶9

Smt. Eramma v. State by Regional Transport Officer

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025CRL.P/6817/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, CRL.P 6817/2023, Justice Mohammad Nawaz, 04-03-2025; motor vehicle tax recovery from registered owner after repossession/seizure by financier (IndusInd Bank, lorry KA-16-A-9178, seized 01.09.2014); refusal to implead financier/bank as co-accused in tax-evasion prosecution under Sections 3, 4 and 12, KMVT Act 1957; Section 319 impleading application rejected by III Addl. CJ & JMFC Davangere in C.C.2191/2015; Section 482 CrPC / 528 BNSS petition; registered ownership not sufficient for post-seizure tax liability; burden on prosecution to prove owner's liability; impugned order confirmed, petition disposed; quantum Rs.57,720/- for 01.07.2013-31.12.2015.

What did the court decide?

Impleading IndusInd Bank as an accused in this case does not arise. ¶8

Smt. Eramma Vs State by Regional Transport Officer — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the application to implead IndusInd Bank, in whose possession the lorry allegedly came upon seizure on 01.09.2014, as an accused in the motor vehicle tax case was rightly rejected. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Impleading IndusInd Bank as an accused in this case does not arise.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

If the vehicle was seized on 01.09.2014 and the petitioner was not in possession consequent to the seizure, the petitioner is not liable to pay motor vehicle tax from the date of seizure, and tax for the period subsequent to 01.09.2014 cannot be recovered from her (subject to proof of the seizure and loss of possession).

¶8

Key takeaways

Merely being shown as the registered owner of the vehicle is not sufficient to recover motor vehicle tax from the petitioner for the period subsequent to the date of seizure, if it is proved that the vehicle was seized on 01.09.2014 and she was not in possession since that date.ratio¶8
It is for the prosecution to prove that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax for the period stated in the complaint.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C./S. 528 BNSS filed by Smt. Eramma seeking to set aside the order dated 03.05.2023 of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere in C.C.No.2191/2015, whereby her application to implead IndusInd Bank as an accused was rejected. The complaint by the Regional Transport Officer, Davanagere related to non-payment of motor vehicle tax of Rs.57,720/- for 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2015, alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the KMVT Act, 1957 punishable under Section 12. The petitioner contended her lorry (Regn. No.KA-16-A-9178) was seized by IndusInd Bank on 01.09.2014 (supported by Ex.P4 police complaint and Exs.D1-D17). The High Court held that impleading IndusInd Bank as an accused does not arise; that registered ownership alone is not sufficient to recover tax from the petitioner for the period after the date of seizure if it is proved the vehicle was seized on 01.09.2014 and she was not in possession thereafter; that tax pertaining to the post-seizure period cannot be recovered from her if she was not in possession consequent to the seizure; and that it is for the prosecution to prove her liability for the period stated in the complaint. With these observations, the impugned order was confirmed and the petition disposed of (Justice Mohammad Nawaz, 04.03.2025).

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6817 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶5

528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. ERAMMA W/O GOLLARAPPA GOWDA S PATIL, AGE:32 YRS, R/O 4^TH CROSS, C BLOCK, KONDAJJI ROAD, DEVRAJ URS LAYOUT, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, DAVANGERE-577 001.

¶13

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3^RD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANGERE DATED 3.5.2023 ON I.A. IN C.C.NO.2191/2015.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is seeking to set aside the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere in C.C.No.2191/2015.

¶22

For non-payment of motor vehicle tax for the period 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2015 amounting to Rs.57,720/-, the Regional Transport Officer, Taxation Authority, Davanagere filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate alleging contravention of Section 3 and 4 of KMVT Act,1957 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act.

¶23

In the course of the trial proceedings an application under Section 319 was filed by the petitioner stating that the vehicle in question i.e., a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-16-A-9178 was seized by IndusInd Bank on 01.09.2014 and therefore, the said lorry was in possession of IndusInd Bank, who is liable to pay the motor vehicle tax from the said date.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023

¶25

The application seeking to implead IndusInd

¶26

Bank as an accused came to be rejected vide impugned order holding that the petitioner has not placed any material to show that the vehicle was not in her possession and that she was not the owner of the vehicle between 01.07.2013 and 31.12.2015.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Ex.P4, the complaint dated 01.09.2014 filed by the petitioner with the police alleging that the vehicle in question was seized by IndusInd Bank. Further, the learned Magistrate at para 15 of the order has observed that as per the documents furnished, the lorry bearing registration No.KA-16-A-9178 was seized by the IndusInd Bank on 01.09.2014.

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that as per the registration certificate, petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and she has paid tax from 01.04.2013 to 30.06.2013 and therefore, she is liable to pay the tax for the subsequent period. It is further

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023

¶31

contended that in the reply submitted to the

¶32

complainant/RTO, the fact of seizure of vehicle has not been informed.

¶33

Petitioner is relying on the documents produced at Exs.D1 to D17 marked before the trial Court.

¶34

If the vehicle was seized on 01.09.2014, then the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax from the said date of seizure of the vehicle. The motor vehicle tax pertaining to the period subsequent to 01.09.2014 cannot

¶35

be recovered from the petitioner if she was not in possession of the vehicle consequent to its seizure. Merely because the petitioner was shown as the registered owner of the vehicle that itself is not sufficient to recover tax from the petitioner subsequent to the date of seizure, if it is proved that the vehicle was seized on 01.09.2014 and the petitioner was not in possession of the vehicle since the said date. However, impleading IndusInd Bank as an accused in this case does not arise. It is for the

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9222 CRL.P No. 6817 of 2023

¶37

prosecution to prove that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax for the period stated in the complaint.

¶38

With the above observation, the order passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere dated 03.05.2023 in C.C.No.2191/2015 is confirmed and petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶40

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 Ct:ar

Smt. Eramma v. State by Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Eramma v. State by Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Vanitha Babu Vs Mr. M. Krishnakumar

Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Palanisamy Selvaraj Vs Parijatha Traders

Sri Nishant Sheoran Vs State by Karnataka

M/S Pavithra Hardware and Electricals Vs M/S Gulshan Trading Company

Sri. Rakesh. K Vs State by