Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. N.T. Kathirvelu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 276 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Mad518; 1959CriLJ1444
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 123
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentN.T. Kathirvelu
Appellant AdvocateV.V. Radhakrishnan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.S. Sethu and ;P.N. George, Advs.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- - 2025, another vehicle, has been substituted for this vehicle, as this vehicle was condemned as unfit for use, and for the vehicle m. but if the vehicle does not use the road subsequently, then under the rules a refund will be granted if the authorities are satisfied that this vehicle did not use the road subsequently......put on the road, it has got to pay the tax for that quarter. but if the vehicle does not use the road subsequently, then under the rules a refund will be granted if the authorities are satisfied that this vehicle did not use the road subsequently. except this concession, the mere fact of substitution of one vehicle by another does not exonerate the first vehicle from payment of tax.4. for the vehicle m. d. j. 832, the owner is bound to pay the tax. inasmuch as he has not paid the tax, he is guilty of the offence and the acquittal is therefore reversed and he is convicted and sentenced to a fine of rs. 25. he is further directed to pay the tax of rs. 427 for the quarter. he will be at liberty to apply for refund by satisfying the authorities that this vehicle did not run after, the.....
Judgment:

Somasundaram, J

1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal pf the respondent on a charge of not paying the tax due for the quarter. There is no doubt about the fact that on 4-10-1955 the lorry in question, i. e., M. D. J. 832 was found on the road. It was noticed by the Inspector and on subsequent verification it was found that the tax for the vehicle was not paid for the quarter.

2. It may also be stated that M. D. J. 2025, another vehicle, has been substituted for this vehicle, as this vehicle was condemned as unfit for use, and for the vehicle M. D. J. 2025 tax has been paid for the entire quarter. The question is whether the payment of tax for the entire quarter for the subsequent vehicle exonerates the payment of tax for the vehicle M. D. J. 832, which was found on the road on 4-10-1955.

3. The finding of the vehicle on the road on the 4th shows that this vehicle used the road, and when once a vehicle is put on the road, it has got to pay the tax for that quarter. But if the vehicle does not use the road subsequently, then under the rules a refund will be granted if the authorities are satisfied that this vehicle did not use the road subsequently. Except this concession, the mere fact of substitution of one vehicle by another does not exonerate the first vehicle from payment of tax.

4. For the vehicle M. D. J. 832, the owner is bound to pay the tax. Inasmuch as he has not paid the tax, he is guilty of the offence and the acquittal is therefore reversed and he is convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25. He is further directed to pay the tax of Rs. 427 for the quarter. He will be at liberty to apply for refund by satisfying the authorities that this vehicle did not run after, the first month in that quarter. The appeal is allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //