Order. — The charge against the accused was that on 8th July, 1973 at about 2-30 P.M. he being the driver of tourist car MYG 1990, drove the said vehicle on the public road from Byndoor towards Kollur side. When checked by the police officer in uniform, he failed to produce registration certificate and driving licence and thereby violated sub-rules (18) (c) and (19) of rule 23 of Karnataka Motor, Vehicles Rules 1963 hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’. The Additional Munsiff - cum - Magistrate, Coondapur believed the evidence of Head Constable and convicted the accused under the said rules and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 on each count and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days on each count. 2. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the Head Constable. However, Mr. Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned Counsel for the accused, contended that the officer who inspected the vehicle and demanded from the accused to produce the registration certificate, was an officer below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police, and he being not competent to inspect the vehicle, the conviction under sub-rule (18) (c) of rule 23 of the Rules is bad. Sub-rule (18) (c) of rule 23 of the Rules provides that the driver of a transport vehicle while on duty shall be responsible for the proper exhibition or production, as the case may be, of the following documents: (a) * * * * (b) * * * * (c) Registration Certificate. (d) * * * * Rule 79 of the Rules provides that all transport vehicles shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by: (i) * * * * (ii) Any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, or (iii) * * * * P.W.1 at the time he inspected the vehicle, was a Head Constable and therefore, he had no power to inspect the same; therefore, the conviction under sub-rule (18) (c) of Rule 23 of the rules cannot be sustained. 3. Conviction under sub-rule (19) of rule 23 is also liable to be set side. Sub-rule (19) provides that the driver of a transport vehicle while on duty shall on demand by any police officer in uniform or any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department, not below the rank of an Inspector of Motor Vehicles should produce his driving licence for inspection. Sub-rule (19) provides that the driver of a transport vehicle while on duty shall on demand by any police officer in uniform or any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department, not below the rank of an Inspector of Motor Vehicles should produce his driving licence for inspection. It will therefore, he seen that the Legislature purposely added the words ‘in uniform’. It would be incorrect to ignore that ingredient of the sub-rule. It is the duty of the prosecution to adduce evidence to establish that the police officer concerned was in uniform at the time of the alleged offence. In this case, though in the charge-sheet it was stated that the police officer was in uniform that evidence is not forthcoming. P.W. 1 in bis evidence has nowhere stated that at the time he stopped the vehicle and inspected the same he was in uniform. This is a very important defect in the prosecution case. To sustain a conviction under this sub-rule, the prosecution must prove that the officer who checked the vehicle was in uniform. There being no evidence in this behalf, I hold that the prosecution have not proved the case against the accused that he had committed an offence within the meaning of sub-rule (19) of rule 23 of the Rules. 4. In the result, I allow this revision petition, set aside the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioner and acquit him.