NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-2-86 passed by the chief Judicial Magistrate Raichur in c. C. 51/86. ( 2 ) THE respondent was owner in possession of the lorry bearing No MYY 5230, the quarterly tax of which was Rs. 1885/ -. He failed to pay the tax for the period from 1-8-84 to 31-10-84 and also for the period from 1-11-84 to 31-1-85 on the dates due. He paid the tax for the said quarters on 17-1-1986. He was prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under S. 12 (1) (a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation act; 1957 and he pleaded guilty. ( 3 ) THE trial court accepted the plea and convicted him. It sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1885/- which is equal to tax payable for one quarter and directed that the same be set-off in the tax amount already paid by him. ( 4 ) THE State has prayed for enhancement of the sentence and also for setting aside the direction for setting off the amount of fine in the tax already paid. ( 5 ) THE amount of quarterly tax due for the period from 1-8-84 to 31-10-84 was in law to be paid on or before 15-8- 84 and that fact is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent did not pay that amount on or before 15-8-84. Therefore, it has to be held that he committed the offence as per the provisions of S. 12 (1) (a) of the said act. The amount of quarterly tax of rs. 1885/- due for the period from 1-11-1984 to 31-1-1985 was in law to be paid on or befora 15-11-84. The respondent-accused did not pay. Hence, he did commit the offence as laid down in S. 12 (1) (a ). This shows that the respondent had committed the offence on two counts. He has to be convicted on each one of the counts. ( 6 ) SRI Viswanath, learned counsel for the respondent, urged that S. 12 of the Act prescribes the penalty and it does not lay down that the penalty should be for each quarterly and, therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court is in accordance with law. He has to be convicted on each one of the counts. ( 6 ) SRI Viswanath, learned counsel for the respondent, urged that S. 12 of the Act prescribes the penalty and it does not lay down that the penalty should be for each quarterly and, therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court is in accordance with law. So far as the question of setting-off is concerned we have already decided the same in our judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1986 and other connected cases; dictated in the open court a few minutes earlier. That direction has to be set aside. ( 7 ) WHEN a person is convicted for having committed an offence on more than one counts sentence on all those counts has to be imposed on him. The sentence prescribed under S. 12 is a fine which shall not be less than the sum equal to the quarterly tax payable in respect of such vehicle, which may extend to a sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle. Tharefore, on each count a minimum sentence atleast has to be imposed. When the respondent has been found guilty on two counts sentence on those two counts, each one being equal to a fine amounting to quarterly tax of Rs. 1785/-, has to be imposed. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that the learned Chief judicial Magistrate has committed an error. ( 8 ) IN view of the foregoing, we allow this appeal and in substitution of the sentences passed by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, we sentence the respondent-accused to pay a fine of rs. 1885/-, which is equal to the quarterly tax, on each of the two counts. We set aside the direction made by the chief Judicial Magistrate directing that the amount of fine is to be set off in the tax already paid. Appeal is allowed. --- *** --- .