KARNATAKA HIGH COURT State of Karnataka Vs. Boodi Reddappa Cr. As. No. 181 and 182 of 1974 (Honniah and Nesargi, JJ.) 29.08.1974 JUDGMENT Nesargi, JJ. 1. These two appeals are filed by the State against the orders of acquittal passed by the First Class Magistrate at Gangavathi, in CCs. 639 & 640 of 1973, acquitting the respondent who is the same in both the appeals, of an offence under S. 12 (1) (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. 3. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution established that the respondent was a registered owner of the said vehicle and the Registration Certificate was in his favor. 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. 4. The prosecution contended before the learned Magistrate that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was in favor 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. 5. The learned State Public Prosecutor contended that so long as the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was in favor 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 S.12 (1) (a) of the Taxation Act. He, in support of this contention, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Narayana Reddy v. Commr for Transport1, 6. Sri Murlidhar Rao, 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, 1939, 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, Tumkur2, 7. Sec. 3(1) of the Taxation Act, to the extent relevant for our purpose, reads as follows : "3. Levy of tax. * * * 8. A reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the tax can be levied on such vehicles if the following two conditions 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. 9. We have already pointed out that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to establish that the respondent had used this vehicle on road during the periods in question. It therefore follows that the prosecution has to depend on the Expln to S.3(1) of the Taxation Act. But the Expln to S.3(1) of the Taxation Act comes into play, only if the Certificate of Registration is current. What is the 'Certificate of Registration' and what is meant by 'Certificate of Registration is current' is not to be found in any of the provisions of the Taxation Act. On the other hand, S.2(j) of the Taxation Act says that the words and expressions used but not defined in the Act shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is therefore manifest that to understand what is meant by 'Certificate of Registration' and when it is to be considered as 'current', one has to necessarily look into the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. That takes us to Ss, 22 & 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The effect of Sec.38 on Sec.22 and the effect of the said two provisions on the currency of Certificate of Registration as mentioned in Expln to S.3 (1) of the Taxation Act, is specifically dealt with by this Court in re Bhagavan's case . Therein, it is held that in the absence of a fitness certificate, the 11971 (2) Mys. L.J. 319 2 AIR 1967 Mys. 139 : (1966) 2 Mys. L.J. 649 Certificate of Registration issued to the owner of the vehicle would be no more current in view of S.38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and in that view of the matter, the Expln to S.3(1) of the Taxation Act would not come into play. We are, therefore, of opinion that the decision in re Bhagavan's case is directly on the point and applies on all fours to the facts and circumstances of these cases. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that there is no substance in these appeals and, hence, dismiss them. Appeals dismissed.