Order: The petitioner in these four revision petitions was the accused in the Court of the First Additional Munsiff-cum-First Class Magistrate, Bellary. He has been prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under section 3(1) read with section 12 (1) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prosecution case was that he being the owner of the vehicle MYY 3786 has failed to pay the tax for the quarter ending 30th September, 1970 to the quarter ending 30th June, 1971. The appeals filed by him against the said conviction and sentence passed on him were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bellary. In these petitions, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence passed on him. 2. Sri C. Narasimhachar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that before there can be a conviction under section 3 (1) read with section 12 (1) of the Act, the prosecution must prove first that (1), the vehicle was suitable for use on roads, and (2) that the vehicle was kept in the State of Mysore. It is contended that the prosecution has not let in any evidence on these two points. The only witness examined in the case is P.W. 1, the Regional Transport Officer. He has stated in his cross examination that the evidence given by him is with reference to the official record and the vehicle in question has not been inspected by him or any of his subordinates. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. Frantin D’Souza1and another decision of this Court rendered in Cr.R. P. Nos. 87 to 91 of 1973. The Learned Counsel has also contended that the petitioner is entitled to the exemption referred to in the notification issued by the Government under section 16 of the Act, as the petitioner has intimated to the Regional Transport Officer about the non-user of the vehicle and various documents such as the registration certificate, permit and the token could not be produced by him as they were not in his possession or control. When that was the case, it is argued that the petitioner is entitled to claim the exemption under section 16 of the Act and there is no liability on him to pay the tax. When that was the case, it is argued that the petitioner is entitled to claim the exemption under section 16 of the Act and there is no liability on him to pay the tax. Strong reliance is placed on two Bench decisions of this Court in Ms. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. The Commissioner for Transport and another1and in M.N. Ramaswamy v. Senior Regional Transport Officer, Shimoga2, in support of the said contention. 3. Taking the first contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has not let in any evidence to show that the vehicle was suitable for use on roads, the Courts below have rightly pointed out that in the instant case, the explanation to section 3 of the Act would be applicable. The said explanation says that a motor vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current shall, for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the registration certificate of the vehicle was in force. In State of Mysore v. Frantin D’Souza3, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a Bench of this High Court has pointed out that from the provisions of the explanation to section 3 (1) of the Act when the certificate of registration in respect of the vehicle was current, the vehicle should be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on reads during the relevant period. I, therefore, see no force in the first contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. Taking the next contention that the prosecution should adduce evidence to show that the vehicle was kept in the State of Mysore, it is clear from the letters - D-3, D-6, and D-7 written by the accused himself to the Regional Transport Officer claiming exemption from payment of tax, that the vehicle has been kept in Toranagallu. When the accused was examined under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, he has admitted that the vehicle has been parked at Tonganagallu in the compound of D. P. Chiraniya & Co. It may be pointed out that the name of the accused is D.P. Chiraniya. When the accused was examined under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, he has admitted that the vehicle has been parked at Tonganagallu in the compound of D. P. Chiraniya & Co. It may be pointed out that the name of the accused is D.P. Chiraniya. It has been strongly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this Court in Frantin D’Souza’s case3referred to above has held that where the prosecution did not produce any evidence that the motor vehicle was kept for use in the State of Mysore, the vehicle would not be liable to be taxed under section 3 (1) of the Act. It may be pointed out that in the above said decision the accused himself had not sent intimation to the Regional Transport Officer stating that the vehicle had been kept in the garage of his company. As there was no evidence whatsoever in that case that the vehicle had been kept in the State of Mysore, their Lordships held that the conviction of the accused for the said offence was not sustainable. Again in Cr.R.P. Nos. 87 to 91 of 1973, this Court pointed out that from Exhibits D-1 and D-2 produced in that case there was no clear admission made by the accused that the vehicle was kept in the State of Mysore. 5. Coming to the last point, I am of opinion that there is force in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute in this case that the registration certificate of the vehicle had been seized by the Regional Transport Officer on 27th January, 1970 and the registration certificate continued with the Regional Transport Officer. Hence question of the accused producing the same before the Regional Transport Officer did not arise. Similarly also the evidence discloses that as the permit of the vehicle had been lost, the accused had applied for the same more than once to the Regional Transport Officer to issue a duplicate permit. This has been admitted by the Regional Transport Officer himself. 6. Similarly also the evidence discloses that as the permit of the vehicle had been lost, the accused had applied for the same more than once to the Regional Transport Officer to issue a duplicate permit. This has been admitted by the Regional Transport Officer himself. 6. In M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Transport and another1, referred to above, a Bench of this Court has pointed out that where the claimant for exemption is not in possession or control of the documents, it would not be right to refuse exemption on the ground of non-production of those documents In the above said decision, at page 796, their Lordships have observed as follows: "Now it is clear that insistence on the production of the documents referred to in the notification under section 16, is permissible only when the documents are in possession or control of the person claiming exemption and he does not produce them. But if in a case like this where the company provided Sharma with financial accommodation under the hire-purchase agreement, and Sharma who defaulted in the payment of the instalments had the custody of the documents and would not make them available to the company, it would not be right to refuse the exemption on the unavailable ground that the company should have produced the documents which were with Sharma. Any such reasoning would invite the reproach of exility (sic) and could rest only upon an artificial and unreasonable interpretation of the notification. * * * * * In our opinion, the requirement of the notification that the documents should be surrendered has not that importance which intimation of non-user has. The true interpretation of the notification is that a claim for exemption should be accompanied by the production of those documents which the person claiming exemption is able to produce. Any other interpretation would lead to the extremely astonishing consequence that a person whose registration certificate, tax token and permit are purloined and so is not in a position to produce them, can be refused the exemption even if the motor vehicle is not under use, and, intimation about it has been imparted. That that is the correct approach to make in the interpretation of the notication is clear from Chamundi Construction Co. That that is the correct approach to make in the interpretation of the notication is clear from Chamundi Construction Co. v. State of Mysore1, "in which it was observed that if the surrender of the documents was plainly impossible as would be the position where the documents to be surrendered does not exist, the omission to surrender has no materiality". This Bench decision of this Court has been followed by another Bench of this Court in M.N. Ramaswamy’s case2cited above. In that case, this Court has pointed out that where there is real inability to produce the document, the production of which is required by the notification issued under section 16 for getting exemption from payment of tax, such, inability dispenses with such production. 7. It is clear from what has been stated above, that apart from C.C. No. 1478 of 1971, wherein quarterly tax ending with quarter of 30th June, 1971. was due, in the other cases i.e., C.C. Nos. 1475 to 1477, the accused has intimated to the Regional Transport Officer regarding the non-user of the vehicle. As the relevant documents were not in his possession or control he could not produce the same as per the Government notification referred to above under section 16 of the Act. Hence, as laid down by a Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that the accused cannot be convicted in these three cases for having committed an offence punishable under section 3(1) read with section 12 (1) of the Act. 8. Taking the case Cr.R.P. No. 368 of 1973 which is filed against the conviction in C.C. No. 1478 of 1971, wherein the accused has been convicted for nonpayment of tax for the quarter ending 30th June, 1971, as already mentioned, the accused has not sent any intimation of non-user of the vehicle to the Regional Transport Officer. Hence this case is on a different footing from the earlier three cases. But. in this case, as there is no letter written by the accused intimating about the non-user of the vehicle, the prosecution cannot rely on the admission of the accused that the vehicle has been kept in the State of Mysore. Hence one of the ingredients of the offence under section 3 (1) of the Act that the prosecution should establish that the vehicle was kept in the State of Mysore has not been proved. Hence one of the ingredients of the offence under section 3 (1) of the Act that the prosecution should establish that the vehicle was kept in the State of Mysore has not been proved. As, in this case, there is no evidence whatsoever let in on behalf of the prosecution to show that the vehicle has been kept in the State of Mysore, and I have already pointed out that the Regional Transport Office-P.W. 1 has made an admission that neither he nor his subordinates have inspected the vehicle. This important ingredient of the offence has not been established by the prosecution. To a case like this, a Bench decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. Frantin D’Souza1, would apply. Their Lordships have pointed out that where the prosecution did not produce any evidence that the motor vehicle was kept for use in the State of Mysore, the vehicle would not be liable to be taxed under section 3 (1) of the Act. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioner in all the four cases has to be set aside and I do so accordingly. 10. In the result, I allow these revision petitions and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner in all these four cases. The petitioner stands acquitted of the charge under section 3 (1) read with section 12 (1) of the Act in all these cases.