Judgment 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. 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. 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 evidence that the accused was registered owner of the vehicle. What the prosecution had further to establish, was, that either as registered owner or otherwise, he had possession or control of the motor vehicle in respect of which there was non-payment of tax.” Mr. Justice Sadasivayya in Criminal Revision Petition No. 154 of 1963, a case in which the accused had been convicted under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act has observed as follows: A scrutiny of the language of section 12 (1) (a) makes it clear that it is the person who (whether as registered owner or otherwise has possession or control of the motor vehicle, that is liable to be punished, for not having paid the amount of tax due in respect of that motor vehicle. The contention on behalf of the second accused is that he had not been either in control or possession of this vehicle during the relevant period…………It is not disputed that the second accused had no possession or control of this vehicle at the time when it was seized from the premises of the first accused. In those circumstances, when it has not been established by the prosecution that the second accused had been either in possession or control of the vehicle, at any time during the relevant period, he cannot be convicted under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act, merely on the ground that the registration continued to be in his name. In those circumstances, when it has not been established by the prosecution that the second accused had been either in possession or control of the vehicle, at any time during the relevant period, he cannot be convicted under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act, merely on the ground that the registration continued to be in his name. The conviction of the second accused for an offence under section 12 (1) (a) as well as the sentence imposed on him will have to be set aside.” Mr. Justice Govinda Bhat speaking for the Bench in W.P. No. 1807 of 1966 at page 7 of the Judgment has observed as follows: “………………The existence of a motor vehicle is a condition precedent for the levy of tax under the Act. The authorities under the Act have to enquire and determine as a question of fact whether the motor vehicle was in fact in existence during the relevant period. If they come to the conclusion that a motor vehicle was in existence during the relevant period, then presumption can be drawn by virtue of the Explanation that the vehicle was suitable for use on roads provided the certificate of registration was current. In our opinion, the respondents were not justified in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax by reason of the fact that the petitioner did not intimate the fact of the vehicle having been scrapped and also by reason of the Explanation to sub- section (1) of section 3.” In the instant case, the only witness examined on behalf of the prosecution is P.W. 1. In cross-examination, he has stated as follows: “The evidence given by me is from official records. I have not seen the vehicle at any time. None of my subordinates or myself inspected the vehicle during the period in question. I cannot say about the condition of the vehicle. Previously I have no knowledge whether the vehicle was in Mysore or elsewhere……..” In answer to a Court question, he has stated as follows: “……….Neither myself nor my staff have seen the vehicle or. the road during the period in question.” It is clear from what has been stated above, the prosecution has not let in any evidence to prove that the Respondent was in possession or control of the vehicle at the relevant time. the road during the period in question.” It is clear from what has been stated above, the prosecution has not let in any evidence to prove that the Respondent was in possession or control of the vehicle at the relevant time. There is also no evidence whether the vehicle itself was in existence, and whether it was suitable for use on roads. It is therefore clear that the prosecution has not established the charge under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act against the Respondent. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.