MYH 3797, to the second respondent on 2.1.71 but neither of the respondents reported the transfer of the vehicle to the Regional Transport Offi cer in companypliance with the terms of Sub Section 1 a and Sub Section 1 b of Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
19751 Karnataka Law Journal p. The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal to the High Court but the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine and hence the present appeal by special leave by the State.
For taking such a view and acquitting the respondents, the learned Magistrate relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in State v. Boodi Reddappa.
Since both the respondents failed to pay the arrears of tax the Transport Authorities filed a companyplaint against them under Section 3 1 read with Section 12 t a of the Taxa tion Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore.
In the trial of the case the second respondent sought to prove his defence by examining the owner of a workshop known as Lokmata Garage and filing several defence exhibits.
A demand numberice was then issued to the second respondent and he too refuted his liability to pay the arrears of tax on the plea that the vehicle was number in a fit companydition and it had been lying in a workshop during the relevant period without repairs being affected for want of spare parts.
The first respondent refuted his liability to pay the arrears of tax on the ground he had transferred the vehicle to the second respondent as early as on 2.1.Tl.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the defence of the respondents and held that since the first respondent had sold the vehicle he was number liable to pay the arrears of tax and likewise the second respondent too was number liable to pay the tax because the vehicle did number have a fitness certificate and had been left in a workshop for repairs being carried out.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.1976 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The case pertained to the owner of a goods vehicle who was prosecuted under Section 12 1 a of the Taxation Act for numberpayment of tax for a certain period during which the vehicle was companyered by a certificate of fitness and there was also numberevidence that the vehicle had been put to use on the roads even without a certificate fitness.
This led to a demand numberice being issued to the first respondent to pay the arrears of tax together with penalty.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The first respondent sold his goods vehicle, to wit a 12 ton lorry bearing Registration No.
169 of 1976 B. Datar, Swaraj Kaushal and M.A. Khan for the Appellants.
2 of 1977.
Even so, the facts of the criminal case filed against the re spondents and the reasons for their acquittal require men tion for a proper companyprehension of the legal issues involved in the case.
This position was companyceded by the learned companynsel for the State even at the companymencement of his arguments.
R. Nagaraja for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. The objective of the State of Karnataka in filing this Appeal by Special Leave is to seek a pronounce ment of this Court on the scope and effect of Section 3 1 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 number the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1957 and number to pursue the prosecutorial action against respondents 1 and 2 for their companytravention of certain provisions of the said Act.
