P. A. KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dt. Sept. 17, 1979, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kolar, in crl. A No. 15/79 quashing the conviction of accused No. 1 Respondent No. 1 for the offence under S. 12 read with S. 3 of the mv Taxation Act and convicting him of the offence under R. 36 read with R. 37 of the MV Taxation Rules. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Krishna Gowda is the owner of a tractor MYK 5038 along with a trailer attached to it. Respondent no 2 H. M. Nanjuude Gowda was tht driver of the said tractor and on the date of offence 7 baskets full of cocoons were being transported to Kolar from Karadagurki, the village of the accused, in contravention of the exemption granted under s. 16 of the Kar. MV Taxation Act, 1937. It is also alleged that Nanjunde Gowda had no valid driving motor licence etc. Accordingly, both the accused were prosacuted for the various offences. ( 3 ) THE trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, convicted accused No. 1 for the offence under S 12 r/w S, 3 of the MV taxation Act and A 2 for the various offences. ( 4 ) BOTH the owner and the driver being aggrieved by the laid order of conviction preferred an appeal in Crl. A 15/79 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kolar. So far as the appeal of the driver was concerned, it was not pressed and hence, conviction and sentence imposed upon the driver have become final. ( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge thought that the offence so far as the owner was concerned did not fall within the ambit of s. 12 r/w S. 3 of the Act and the offence fell only under R. 36 r/w R. 37 of the MV taxation Rules. ( 6 ) THE State being aggrieved has come up with this appeal. The exemption granted under S. 16 (3) relates to agricultural operations and the transportation of agricultural produce. The word 'agricultural produce' has not been defined either in the Motor Vehicles Act or in the mv Taxation Act. The words 'agricultural produce' is normally confined to growing crop standing on the land on which it is grown and cut crop lying on the threshing floor or fodder stack. The word 'agricultural produce' has not been defined either in the Motor Vehicles Act or in the mv Taxation Act. The words 'agricultural produce' is normally confined to growing crop standing on the land on which it is grown and cut crop lying on the threshing floor or fodder stack. It may also include the grain separated from the chaff. Therefore, in our opinion, agricultural produce would mean the things grown on the land and would not include an animal, insect or worm fed on the crops raised on the land. Cocoons are reared on the mulberry leaves grown on the land. Merely because the mulberry leaves are raised on the land, it does not mean that the cocoons would be agricultural produce. Therefore, in our opinion, cocoons are not at ail agricultural produce. ( 7 ) R. 36 of the MV Taxation Rules, 1957 reads as under :"for purposes of sub sec, (3) of S. 16, agricultural operations shall mean, tilling, sowing, weeding, harvesting, crushing of agricultural produce, reclamation and levelling of the land for Agriculture, transportation of persons, materials and manure to the agricultural farm, solely for the purpose of agriculture, and transportation of agricultural produce from the agricultural farm to the house of the owner, provided that for taking the vehicles for repairs, or for a driving test, the owner shall obtain a written permission from the Regional Transport officer". It is not the case of the accused that the transportation of cocoons would fall within the meaning of agricultural operations as defined by R. 36 of the Rules. It is also not the case of the accused that at the material time when his vehicle was caught, it was being used for agricultural operations. Therefore, we are unable to understand how R. 36 comes into play. It is the violation of R. 36 that is made punishable under R. 37. Therefore, in our opinion", the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the offence falls under r. 36. ( 8 ) 11 becomes clear from the evidence of PWs I and 2 that 7 baskets full of cocoons were being transported from Karadagurki to Koiar for marketing. Therefore, he was using it for a purpose other than the one in respect of which the exemption was given to him. Therefore, it amounts to misuse of the vehicle though it might be for one day. Therefore, he was using it for a purpose other than the one in respect of which the exemption was given to him. Therefore, it amounts to misuse of the vehicle though it might be for one day. ( 9 ) A similar situation arose in the case of Patel Giriyappa v. Dy. Transport commr. (1 ). The material facts in that case were :"where a tractor-trailer designed and used for agricultural operations and ex- empled from payment of tax under S. 16 (3) is used for non-agricultural purpose, the owner is liable to be prosecuted". The facts in that case are that the tractor trailer was carrying stones for road works which was not for agricultural purpose i. e. , in violation of the exemption granted under S. 16 (3) of the Act. It appears from the facts of the said case that the owner of the tractor trailer was held liable to pay tax. However, the said ruling laid down that the Act did not prevent the owner from claiming exemption again if the vehicle is used solely for agricultural operations. ( 10 ) THOUGH the tractor trailer in question might have been misused even for one day only, in violation of the exemption, still in our opinion it attracts S. 3 of the kar. MV Taxation Act. The violation of s. 3 is made punishable under S. 12. Therefore, the trial Court, in our openion, was perfectly justified in convicting the accused for the offence under S. 12 r/w S. 3 of the act. The sentence imposed upon the owner Krishne Gowda for the offence under S. 12 r/w S. 3 of the Act by the trial court is absolutely reasonable and correct. Therefore, we set aside the judgment and the order of conviction under R. 36 r/w r. 37 of the MV Taxation Rules imposed by the Sessions Judge and in its place, we affirm the conviction and the sentence of the owner Krishne Gowda for the offence under S. 12 r/w S. 3 of the MV Taxation act as ordered by the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed. --- *** --- .