JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Inspector of Motor Vehicles filed the prosecution report on the allegation that he inspected the motor vehicle bearing No. O.R.G. 1592 at about 6 p. m. on 25-7-1964 and found that it was not sprayed with D.D.T. and that there was no endorsement in the fitness certificate that it was sprayed with D.D.T. Accused No. 1 is the:owner of the vehicle and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the driver and conductor respectively. The defence was that there was spraying of D.D.T. in accordance with the Rules. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case, acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 and convicted accused No. 1, u/s 112, Motor Vehicles Act an sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15/ - in default to undergo S.I. for one week. Accused No. 1 is the Petitioner. 2. Mr. Murty contends that a fitness certificate in form H u/s 38 of Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter to be referred to as the Act cannot be issued unless an the rules under the Motor Vehicles Rules hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules are complied with. The absence of an endorsement of the Motor Vehicles Inspector on the certificate has nothing to do with any omission on the part of the owner of the vehicle. He further contends that prosecution has failed to establish that D.D.T. was not sprayed either at the time of the issue of the fitness certificate or subsequently once in every two months as required under the Rules. To appreciate the aforesaid contention the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules require examination. 3. Section 112 of the Act lays down that whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made there under shall, if no other penalty is provided for the office, be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 100/ - ... ... .., The prosecution Case is that the Petitioner contravened Rule 148-A. That rule says: Every public service vehicle shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. For this purpose every such vehicle shall be disinfected with D.D.T. at least once in two months and in particular such D.D.T., spraying shall be done in the presence of the Inspect of Motor Vehicles at the time of every inspection for issue of fitness certificate. For this purpose every such vehicle shall be disinfected with D.D.T. at least once in two months and in particular such D.D.T., spraying shall be done in the presence of the Inspect of Motor Vehicles at the time of every inspection for issue of fitness certificate. It shall be the duty of the Inspector of Motor Vehicle to endorse the compliance of the above provision of each certificate of fitness issued by him in -respect of every such vehicle. On analysis, the rule requires compliance of the following elements: (1) Every vehicle shall be disinfected with D.D.T. at least once in two months. Prosecution case is not based on contravention of this provision. In other words there is no allegation of the prosecution that the vehicle was not being sprayed with D.D.T. at least once in every two months. (2) D.D.T. shall be sprayed in presence of the Inspector of Motor Vehicles at the time of every inspection for issue of fitness certificate. It shall be (the duty of the Inspector of Motor Vehicles to endorse the compliance of the above provision of each certificate of fitness issued by him in respect of every such vehicle. 4. Admittedly in this case there is no endorsement by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles that D.D.T. was sprayed in the vehicle at the time of issue of the certificate. It must, however, be noted that the rule makes it clear that it is the duty of the Inspector to make the endorsement. Question arises whether the absence of such all endorsement would establish that there was no spraying D.D.T. Section 38 of the Act makes it clear as to in what circumstances a fitness certificate is granted. The section provides that a transport vehicle shall not be deferred to be validly registered unless it carries certificate of fitness in Form. Has set forth in the First Schedule issued by the prescribed authority to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter v. and rules made thereunder. Rule 148-A is one of the Rules made under Chapter V. The necessary logical conclusion is that unless Rule 148-A is complied with, a certificate of fitness in form H cannot be issued. Rule 148-A is one of the Rules made under Chapter V. The necessary logical conclusion is that unless Rule 148-A is complied with, a certificate of fitness in form H cannot be issued. The issue of such a certificate establishes by necessary implication that D.D.T. was sprayed in the vehicle in the, presence of the Motor Vehicles Inspector whereafter the certificate was issued. The absence of endorsement merely proves the negligence on the part of the Inspector. 5. u/s 38 of the Act, a certificate of fitness shall remain effective for a period which would not be more than two years and less than six month. Under Rule 148. A, the spraying of D.D.T. would be continued once in every two months even after the issue of certificate. The prosecution cases we confined only to spraying of D.D.T. at the time of the issue of the certificate. There is no case of non-spraying in every two months after the issue of the certificate. The issue of certificate itself establishes that D.D.T. had been sprayed at the' time of issue. 6. Thus, the prosecution case fails entirely. The Petitioner did not contravene the provisions of Rule 148-A and no offence was committed u/s 112 of the Act. The Petitioner is therefore entitled to an acquittal. 7. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioner be set aside. The fine, if paid, be refunded. Revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed