In the absence of a fitness certificate, the Certificate of Registration would not be current, and therefore, the respondent was not liable to pay the tax as demanded by the motor vehicles authorities.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are filed by the State against the orders of acquital passed by the First Class Magistrate at Gangavathi, in CCs. 639 and 640 of 1973, acquitting the respondent who is the same in both the appeals, of an offence under S. 12 (l) (a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Taxation Act' ).

( 2 ) IN both the cases, the respondent had been charge-sheeted for having not paid the motor vehicle's tax in regard to his goods vehicle, bearing registration no. MYU 3794 for different periods. The contention of the respondent was that he had not at all, during the concerned periods, used the said vehicle on road and that he had put it up on jacks near the society building, and therefore, he was not liable to pay any tax for the said periods. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution established that the respondent waa a registered owner of the said vehicle and the Registration certificate was in his favour. There was no Certificate of Fitness issued to him during the two periods in question. The prosecution did not establish by producing any evidence that the respondent had, as a matter of fact, actually used the vehicle on road at any time during the two periods concerned in the two cases. On the other hand, the evidence adduced showed that the respondent had in fact, not at all used the vehicle on road at any time during the two periods.

( 3 ) THE prosecution contended before the learned Magistrate that the registration Certificate of the vehicle was in favour of the respondent and that it had not been either surrendered or cancelled. Therefore, Explanation to S. 3 of the Taxation Act was attracted and as such, the respondent was liable to pay the tax as demanded by the motor vehicles authorities. The learned magistrate held that the said Explanation was not applicable and acquitted the respondent.

( 4 ) THE learned State Public Prosecutor contended, that so, long as the Registration certificate of the vehicle was in favour of the respondent and he had not surrendered it so as to enable him to claim exemption from paying the tax, the Explanation to S. 3 of the Taxation Act was attracted, and hence he was liable to pay the tax, and he having failed to pay the tax, had committed an offence punishable under 5. 12 (1) (a) of the Taxation act. He, in support of this contention, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Narayon Raddy v. Commr for Transport, 1971 (2) Mys. L. J. 319.

( 5 ) SRI Murlidhar Rap, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, contended that in view of the absence of a Fitness Certificate in regard to this vehicle during the, said periods, it will have to be held that the vehicle in question was not validly registered as required under sec. 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1239, and therefore, the Certificate of registration was not current during the periods in question and as such, the Explanation to S. 3 of the Taxation Act, is not applicable; He, on this basis, argued that the respondent was not liable to pay any tax and as such, the prosecution has not established the charges against the respondent. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Bhagavan v. Regional Transport Officer, Tumkur, AIR 1967 Mys 139 = (1966) 2 Mys. L. J. 640. Sec. 3 (1) of the Taxation Act, to the extent relevant fpr our purpose, reads as follows : "3. Levy of tax. A reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the tax can be levied on such vehicles if the following two coditions are; satisfied (1) The vehicle is suitable for use on roads; and (2) The vehicle is kept in the State of Mysore. The word 'kept appearing in the second condition does not refer to mere possession or custody of a vehicle by a person. It necessarily means 'kept for use', when the scheme and context of the Taxation Act is taken into consideration. That is the view expressed by this Court in re Narayana Reddy's case (1 ). We have already pointed