JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of a bus (ORB 930) and Petitioner No. 2 is the driver. Petitioner No. 1 has been convicted u/s 12(1)(a) of Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 (Bihar and Orissa Act II of 1930), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default to undergo S.J. for four months. Petitioner No. 2 has been convicted u/s 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act" 1939 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/ -. in default to undergo S.I. for ten days. 2. Most of the facts are not disputed in this case. For the 4th quarter of 1964 (October-December) Petitioner No. 1 did Dot pay the tax in respect of the vehicle. There was no tax token affixed. The matter was detected on 18-12-1964. Petitioners took the plea that the tax had been deposited on 5-12-1964 and in evidence thereof filed certified copy of the treasury chalan in the appellate Court. Both the Courts below held that the Petitioners were guilty. 3. For the purpose of this case it might be assumed that the tax was deposited on 5-12-1964 as evidenced by the treasury chalan. Question for consideration is whether Petitioner No. 1 is still guilty of the offence u/s 12(I)(a) of the Act. 4. The section, so far as is relevant, runs thus: Whoever keeps a motor vehicle for use without having paid the tax or additional tax: in respect of such vehicles shall be punishable with fine not exceeding, in the case of the first conviction, one and a half times, and in the case of a second or any subsequent conviction, twice, the amount of the annual tax payable for the motor vehicle in respect of which the offence is committed. 5.There is no doubt that this is a case of first conviction. 5. The section thus prescribes that no person can keep a motor vehicle for use without having paid the tax. Assuming that the tax was deposited on 5-12-1964, from 1-10-1964 till 5-12-1961: Petitioner No. 1 kept the motor vehicle for use without having paid the tax. The offence is thus clearly brought home to the accused on non-payment of tax even on the first day of the quarter. 6. Assuming that the tax was deposited on 5-12-1964, from 1-10-1964 till 5-12-1961: Petitioner No. 1 kept the motor vehicle for use without having paid the tax. The offence is thus clearly brought home to the accused on non-payment of tax even on the first day of the quarter. 6. It would be clear on an analysis of relevant sections of the Act and the Rules made there under that the tax is payable from the very first day of the quarter. Section 6 of the Act lays down that there shall be paid on every motor vehicle a tax at the rate specified in the Second Schedule to this Act. The tax shall be paid only by a person who keeps a motor vehicle for use. Under the proviso, the tax may be paid quarterly. 7. Section 12-A lays down that without prejudice to any other liability that may be incurred under any of the Provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder the licensing officer may, on default in payment of the tax within fifteen days from the due date of payment, impose a penalty, on the person liable to pay the tax, of an amount equal to, in the case of a default for the first time, twice the amount of tax remaining unpaid and in the case of any subsequent default, four times such tax. Under the Explanation to the section, the expression "due date of payment" shall be the date on which the vehicle had started being used without the tax having been paid in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Rule 3 of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1930, says that the quarterly periods referred to in Section 6 of the Act shall be the four periods beginning on the first day of January, April, July and October and ending on the last day of -March, June, September and December respectively. 8. A slight difference in the language in the Explanation and in Sections 6 and 12 may be noticed. In Sections 6 and 12, the expression is "who keeps a motor vehicle for use" while in Explanation to 12-A the expression is "the date on which the vehicle had started being used". On an analysis of the sections and rule, the position of law seems to be this. In Sections 6 and 12, the expression is "who keeps a motor vehicle for use" while in Explanation to 12-A the expression is "the date on which the vehicle had started being used". On an analysis of the sections and rule, the position of law seems to be this. A motor vehicle can be kept for use or be used on payment of tax. The tax is payable before the motor vehicle is actually used or kept for use. The quarterly payment of tax permissible in law is payable before the first day of the quarter. A period of grace is, however, given u/s 12-A which is for fifteen days from the due date of payment as defined in the Explanation. If the tax is paid within the period of grace, no penalty is to be paid. If the tax is paid beyond the period of grace, the owner is liable to pay penalty at the rate prescribed. Payment of penalty, however, does no exonerate the owner from other liabilities under the Act. Section 12 prescribes one such liability by making the non-payment of tax, in case of vehicle kept for use, an offence. 9. Thus Petitioner No. 1 is guilty u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act even though he might have deposited the tax on 5-12-1964. In the view of the legal position it is unnecessary to examine the correctness of the fact whether really Petitioner No. 1 deposited the tax on 5-12-1964. Till 5-12-1964 Petitioner No. 1 kept and used the vehicle without payment of tax. The offence is clearly made out. The conviction is well founded and cannot be disturbed. 10. Mr. Khan argued for leniency on the question of sentence. This being the first offence, ends of justice would be met if Petitioner No. 1 pays a fine a Rs. 500/ - (Rupees five hundred) in default to undergo S.I. for one month. The revision of Petitioner No. 2 not passed and is dismissed. 11. Subject to the modification of sentence in the case of Petitioner No. 1, the revision is dismissed.