Ingredients necessary to be proved.

Santhosh, J.- This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent on a charge under section 12 (1) (a) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. The charge against the respondent was that he failed to pay the tax of the goods vehicle No. MYL 4735 being its registered owner from 1st July, 1967 to 31st March, 1968 amounting to Rs. 1,500 at Rs. 600 per quarter. He was also charged with not having paid the quarterly tax for the quarter ending 30th June, 1967 in time.

The defence of the respondent was that he was not liable to pay the tax as he had sold the vehicle to one Narayan Karjagi on 14th December, 1966. The respondent also stated that he had handed over possession of the vehicle to the purchaser. He has further stated that the vehicle was not in a not condition to be used on the road and that it was in the garrage from March, 1967. The Respondent also produced an agreement of sale of the vehicle according to which the tax was to be paid by the purchaser.

The learned Magistrate held that the prosecution had not established that the vehicle was suitable for use on the road and that the vehicle was kept for use in the State of Mysore during the period in question. He therefore held that the prosecution had not made out the charge against the respondent.

Sri Dayanand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has pointed out that the respondent has given different versions when he was called upon to pay tax. In his first reply he has not stated that he had sold the vehicle and the vehicle was not suitable for use on the road. It is only at a late stage that he put forth this defence. He argues that the evidence of D.W. 1 cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the earlier version put forward by the accused was different. He has strongly relied on the presumption arising under explanations to section 3 of the Act which says:

“ Explanation: A motor vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads.”

He argues that the registration certificate of the vehicle was current and in force and as such the said presumption arises and the learned Magistrate was wrong in acquitting the Respondent.

The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has made out the charge under section 12 (1) (a) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. It is clear from the wording of section 12 (1) (a) of the Act that the registered owner, having possession or control of the vehicle which is liable to be taxed under the Act, has not paid the tax, he will be liable to be convicted under the said section. The first and important question for consideration in this case is whether the prosecution has proved that the respondent, though he was a registered owner, was in possession or control of the said vehicle.

In Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1964 Mr. Justice Somnath Iyer, as he then was speaking for the Bench at page 14 of the judgment has observed as follows:

“The crucial question with which we are concerned in this case is whether the accused had possession or control over the vehicle besides being its registered owner. Mr. Venkataramiah is right in asking attention to the provisions in the repealed Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation and Tolls Act, 1951, section 4 of which corresponded to section 12 (1) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 which repealed the earlier enactment. The contrast between the language of section 6 of the repealed Act and that of section 12 (1) (a) of the repealing Act consists of the fact, that, whereas, under section 6 of the repealed Act, a registered owner committed an offence if he did not pay the tax due by him, no offence is committed under section 12 (1) (a) unless a person who has not paid the tax has possession or control of the motor vehicle either as registered owner or otherwise. So it is obvious that it is not enough for the prosecution to merely produce evid