( 1 ) PETITIONER, who is common in all these revision petitions, has been convicted by the learned Special JMFC (Sales Tax), Bangalore, of an offence punishable under Section 29 (1) (b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('act' for short) and is sentenced in each case to a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge, while affirming conviction, modified the sentence to one of fine of Rs. 250/- in each case. Petitioner has now approached this Court under Section 397, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in submitting the returns in Form No. 3 for the period from April 1992 to October 1994. That is how, for each month, a separate case came to be filed, all the said cases, namely from C. C. Nos. 1 to 31 of 1995, having been disposed of by the learned Magistrate by a common judgment and order dated 23-11-1995, the Criminal Appeals concerned by a common judgment and order dated 26-4-1996 by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 3 ) SECTION 29 (1) (g) of the Act inter alia provides that a person who fails to submit a statement as required by Section 12b (1) of the Act shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 250/- but which may extend to Rs. 500/ -. Section 12b (1) inter alia requires every dealer to send every month to the authority concerned, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, a statement containing such particulars as may be prescribed, including the taxable turnover during the preceding month, requiring to pay in advance full amount of tax payable by him within 20 days after the close of the preceding month. Rule 17 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 inter alia provided that a statement under Section 12b (1) of the Act shall be in Form No. 3 and shall be sent in duplicate to the assessing authority or shall be sent to the concerned authority so as to reach it within 20 days after close of the month to which such statement or return may relate. Such statement also required to be accompanied by a receipt of a Government treasury, a crossed postal order and a crossed cheque, etc. Such statement also required to be accompanied by a receipt of a Government treasury, a crossed postal order and a crossed cheque, etc. covering the amount of tax payable for the preceding month after the statement is submitted. Admittedly, in these cases, Form No. 3 as required by the above said Rule 17 of the Rules has not been submitted by the petitioner for the period from April, 1992 to October, 1994. But, in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as also in the course of examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. he came up with a definite case as to why the statement in Form No. 3 for the said purpose concerned had not been filed. Learned Magistrate as also the learned Sessions Judge have failed to appreciate this stand taken by the defence and to examine as to whether the said stand stood probabilised. Failure to bestow attention to this aspect led to manifest illegality leading to miscarriage of justice. That needs to be interfered with in these revision petitions. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution was that, during the period concerned, the case of the petitioner stood transferred to the 33rd Circle and that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to submit the statement in Form No. 3 to the said 33rd Circle. What the petitioner stated in the course of examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. was that he had been submitting returns in 8th Circle, that he was not intimated about the change of jurisdiction to the 33rd Circle, that he had approached all the concerned Circles for filing returns, and that it was only when he received a notice from the 33rd Circle that he approached the said Circle, but that the authorities refused to receive the returns saying that the charge-sheet had already been filed. It had to be seen whether this defence stand stood probablised. The only witness examined in support of the case of prosecution, namely PW-1, ACTO of the 33rd Circle, admitted in the cross-examination that he had not intimated the change of jurisdiction to the 33rd Circle nor had his predecessor communicated the said change to the petitioner. Exhibit P-5 would show that up to 6-1-1992, the case of the petitioner was being dealt with by the 8th Circle, and that from that date onwards, it was transferred to the 33rd Circle. Exhibit P-5 would show that up to 6-1-1992, the case of the petitioner was being dealt with by the 8th Circle, and that from that date onwards, it was transferred to the 33rd Circle. In Exhibit P-5, it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner had submitted Form No. 3 up to November, 1991. Significantly in these cases, it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has committed failure in submitting Form No. 3 right from December, 1991 itself. Their definite case is that failure is only from April 1992 onwards. That means, for the months of December 1991, January 1992, February 1992 and March 1992, even according to the prosecution, petitioner was submitting statements in Form No. 3. Those statements obviously are not received by the 33rd Circle. That means, that either 8th Circle or some other Circle continued to receive the returns of the petitioner for four months even after the file had been transferred to 33rd Circle. Petitioner's contention that he had no knowledge of the change of his case from 8th Circle to 33rd Circle until he had received a notice from the 33rd Circle, needs to be taken seriously. It was only in Exhibit D-1 that the 33rd Circle for the first time, on 14-10-1994, informs the petitioner that he was required to submit returns from April, 1992 to October, 1994. Immediately, on 21-12-1994, petitioner seeks certain clarification as per Exhibit D-2 and he pointedly requests early reply to know the jurisdiction to file returns. By the endorsement dated 22-12-1994 at Exhibit D-3, the 33rd Circle informs the petitioner that he must file Form No. 3 to the said office only without any delay. It is suggested in the cross-examination of PW-1 that the Auditor of the petitioner did approach the authorities on 30-12-1994 itself with the statements. What has been stated by PW-1 is that he had filed charge-sheet on 31-12-1994 and that thereafter, on behalf of the petitioner, a boy came with returns. This does not take away the possibility of the authorities having been approached on 30-12-1994 through the Auditor of the petitioner as suggested to in the cross-examination of PW-1. What has been stated by PW-1 is that he had filed charge-sheet on 31-12-1994 and that thereafter, on behalf of the petitioner, a boy came with returns. This does not take away the possibility of the authorities having been approached on 30-12-1994 through the Auditor of the petitioner as suggested to in the cross-examination of PW-1. All these circumstances probablise the defence version that the petitioner had no knowledge of his case having been transferred to the 33rd Circle and that he had been approaching all Circles but in vain, and, that soon after he received notice from the 33rd Circle, he immediately sought certain clarification, and, that he reiterated that when he made prompt attempt to comply with the provisions, the authorities of 33rd Circle pleaded that the charge-sheet had already been filed. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, partly there is a failure on the part of the authorities in not intimating the petitioner of the change of jurisdiction as admitted by PW-1 in the cross-examination itself. That the authorities also continued to accept the returns of the petitioner even up to March, 1992 even though the case had been transferred to 33rd Circle would only further strengthen this stand of the defence. In the circumstances, the prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with Section 12b (1) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules. ( 6 ) PETITIONS are allowed. Conviction and sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 29 (1) (g) of the Act in all the cases concerned. Petitioner is directed to submit Form No. 3 together with the documents concerned in respect of each of the months concerned, i. e. from April, 1992 to October, 1994 within two months from today. If the said returns are not filed within two months from today, the authorities are at liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with law for such failure. Petitions allowed. --- *** --- .