( 1 ) IN these two petitions common question of law arises and hence they are being disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) CRRP. 243 of 1978 arises out of the order d. 20-6-1978 passed by the JMFC, Koppal, in CC. 184 of 1978 and Crrp. 244 of 1978 ariaes out of the order d/ 20-6-1978 passed by the JMFC, Koppal, in CC. 185 of 1978. ( 3 ) IN CC. 184 of 1978 the Regionol Transport Officer, Raichur, alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Sce. 12 (1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as he had as a registered owner or otherwise in possession or control of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MYR 4566 (lorry) without paying tax as per the provisions of the Act for the quarter ending on 30-6-76. In CC. 185 of 1978 the RTO, Raichur, complained that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Sec. 12 (1) of the Act as he had, a a registered owner or otherwise in possession or control of the same vehicle without paving tax as per the provision of the act for the quarter ending on 30-9-1976. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed two applications one in CC. 184/78 and one in cc. 185/78 contending that no prosecution could be taken up againet him in view of 8. 468 (2) (a) of the Crpc because the complaint had been filed on 21-5-78. The learned Magistrate has parsed the impugned orders holding that the contention of the petitioner was not tenable as according to him the offences complained of by the RTO were continuing offence and the provision in Section 472 of the Crpc save the situation in favour of the prosecution. Crlrps. 243 and 244 of 1978 ( 5 ) SECTION 12 (1) of the Act reads as follows:" 12. Crlrps. 243 and 244 of 1978 ( 5 ) SECTION 12 (1) of the Act reads as follows:" 12. Penalties -.- (I) Whoever- (a) as a registered owner or otherwise has possession or control of any motor vehicle liable to tax under this Act without having paid the amount of the tax or additional tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of such vehicle, or (b) delivers a declaration or additional declaration where in the particulars required by or under this Act to be therein set forth are not fully and truly stated, shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the quarterly tax payable in respect of such vehicle and which may extend to, a sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicles ; and in the event of such person having been previously convicted of offence under this section with fine which shall not be legs than a sum equal to the tax payable in respect of such vehicle for two quarters and which may extend to a sum equal to twice the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle ; and the amount of any tax due shall be recoverable as if it were a fine. "a plain reading of this provision makes such possession or control of a motor vehicle an offence punishable with fine as provided therein. The sentence is based on the amount of quarterly tax. It is also plain that whenever a person fails to pay tax for a particular quarter during which he, as a registered owner or otherwise, has possession or control over such a vehicle, he commits an offence. If he does it again in another quarter, he commits another offence. ( 6 ) IN view of the foregoing, it follows that if the tax is not paid for a particular quarter for a vehicle, the person who has possession or control over such vehicle as a registered owner or otherwise commits an offence which continues to be an offence every day during such quarter. This position in law is arrived at without deciding what would be the legal position when there is delayed payment of tax during a particular quarter. This position in law is arrived at without deciding what would be the legal position when there is delayed payment of tax during a particular quarter. When such person pays tax for the next quarter and continues to be in possession and contcal over such a vehicle, he does not commit any offence under Sec. 12 of the Act. For the offence he has committed in the previous quarter he could be in law. prosecuted. Such prosecution shall have to be within the period prescribed in 8. 468 (2) (a) of the Crlpc. It cannot at all be said, in law, that an offence that had been committed for a particular quarter is a continuing offence for subsequent quarters also, though the concerned person pays tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act for those quarters. Therefore, the offence for which the petitioner is prosecuted in CC. 184 of 1978 had been committed by him during the quarter ending 30-6-1976 and it was a continuing offence till the end of the quarter namely, till 30-6-76 Similarly, the offence for which the petititoner is prosecuted in CC. 185 of 1978 is a continuing offence continuing up to the end of the quarter namely, ending an 30-9-76. In regard to the offence complained of in CC. 184 of 1978, the petitioner ought to have been in law, prosecuted within six months from 30-6-76, and in regard to the offence complained of in CC. 185 of 1978, the petitioner ought to have been prosecuted within six months from 30-9-76 But the prosecutions have been instituted against the peititioner on 21-5-1978 the prosecution has not claimed extension of period of limitation under sec. 473 of the Crlpc. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate had no power to take cognizance of the offences and as such the prosecuting the petitioner in these cases is bad in law. ( 7 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, these petitions are allowed and the prosecutions of the petitioner in CC. 184 of 1978 and CC. 185 of 1978 on the file of the JMFC, Koppal, are quashed. --- *** --- .