Order.- The sole question raised for consideration by the revision petitioner is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, his conviction under section 12 (1)(a)of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, is legal. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gulbarga, filed a charge-sheet against the accused (petitioner) for an offence punishable under section 12 (1)(a)of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) for his failure to pay vehicles tax in respect of his Lorry No. MYQ 812 kept for use. in Gulbarga District from 1st January, 1963 to 31st March, 1963. The accused pleaded not guilty. In substance his plea is that his vehicle met with an accident on 23rd December, 1962, that the same was towed to a workshop at Hyderabad and the vehicle remained in Hyderabad till 6th January, 1964. The effect of this plea is that the accused was not liable to pay the tax for the quarter commencing from 1st January, 1963, and ending with 31st of March, 1963. Mr. Jagannatha Shetty, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that as the prosecution has not proved that the vehicle had been kept in the State of Mysore during the material period for which the tax is alleged to have not been paid in time the conviction of the petitioner is illegal. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Advocate, it is necessary to refer to section 3 (1) of the Act which provides for levy of tax on vehicles. It reads: “3. (1) A tax at the rates specified in Part A of the Schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads, kept in the State of Mysore. Provided that in the case of motor vehicles kept by a dealer in or manufacturer of, such vehicles for the purposes of trade, the tax shall only be levied and paid by such dealer or manufacturer on vehicles permitted to be used on roads in the manner prescribed by Rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Provided that in the case of motor vehicles kept by a dealer in or manufacturer of, such vehicles for the purposes of trade, the tax shall only be levied and paid by such dealer or manufacturer on vehicles permitted to be used on roads in the manner prescribed by Rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Explanation.-A motor vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads.” The contention of the learned Advocate is that in a prosecution for failure 13 pay tax within the prescribed time, the prosecution must prove not only that the vehicle is suitable for use on roads but also that it was kept in the State of Mysore during the relevant period. The learned Government Pleader contends that section 3 (1) contemplates two categories of vehicles, namely, (1) Motor vehicles which are suitable for use on roads; and (2) Motor vehicles kept in the State of Mysore. According to him, the moment it is shown that the motor vehicle is suitable for use on roads, the owner of the vehicle becomes liable for tax and his failure to pay the same for the relevant period will render him liable for prosecution for non-payment. I am unable to agree with the learned Government Pleader. The plain wording of section 3 (1) is that in order that a motor vehicle becomes liable for tax, it should be shown that it is kept in the State of Mysore and that it is suitable for use on roads. The words “kept in the State of Mysore” refer to the territorial jurisdiction of the State to levy tax while the words “suitable for use on roads” create liability on the owner of the vehicle for the payment of the vehicle tax. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the State gets jurisdiction to levy, and the owner becomes liable to pay the tax. Often times it is difficult for the State to prove that a particular vehicle was or was not suitable for use on roads, during any part or quarter of the year. Therefore, the Explanation to section 3 (1) incorporates a legal presumption in regard to the suitability of a vehicle for use on roads. Often times it is difficult for the State to prove that a particular vehicle was or was not suitable for use on roads, during any part or quarter of the year. Therefore, the Explanation to section 3 (1) incorporates a legal presumption in regard to the suitability of a vehicle for use on roads. The moment the prosecution established that the certificate of registration of a particular motor vehicle is current, then it is presumed for the purpose of the Act that the vehicle is suitable for use on roads. The liability to pay tax in respect of a vehicle which is kept in the State of Mysore would not arise unless the motor vehicle is suitable for use on roads. During the period of currency of the certificate of registration, if the motor vehicle gets out of order or becomes unfit for use on roads, then the owner can claim exemption from the liability to pay tax by intimating the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner about the condition of the vehicle. If on the other hand, the vehicle is fit for use and it is not kept in the State of Mysore, then the State of Mysore will have no jurisdiction to levy the tax. The word “keep” according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means “have charge of; retain possession of, not lose or destroy.” If therefore the owner of a vehicle is to be charged the vehicle tax, he should have a vehicle suitable for use on roads, kept in the State of Mysore. In a prosecution under section 12 for default in the payment of tax within the prescribed period, the prosecution has to establish both these requirements of section 3 (1) of the Act. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Madras High Court In re United Motor Company Ltd.1. In a prosecution under section 12 for default in the payment of tax within the prescribed period, the prosecution has to establish both these requirements of section 3 (1) of the Act. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Madras High Court In re United Motor Company Ltd.1. The charging section as it then stood was section 4 (1) and read thus: “The local Government may by notification in the Official Gazette from time to time direct that tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle kept or used in the Presidency of Madras.” In interpreting this section, the Court held that, “it is essential to the liability to pay the tax and to the imposition of the penalty for failure to pay that there should be proof that the vehicle was kept or used within the Presidency Town of Madras, for the period during which that tax is claimed to be due.” As against this view, the learned Government Pleader contends that section 3(1) contemplates two categories of vehicles as already mentioned and that the accused was rightly held liable as it was shown that his vehicle was suitable for use on roads. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed on the Explanation which, as observed, incorporates a legal presumption in favour of the State. No doubt the certificate of registration was current and the prosecution could on the basis of such certificate request the Court to draw a presumption in its favour regarding the suitability of the vehicle for being used on roads. According to Mr. Mahajan, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that the vehicle was kept in the State of Mysore. If this interpretation were to be accepted, then we will have to introduce the word “or” between the two clauses namely “all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads” and “kept in the State of Mysore.” In my opinion, such an interpretation of the section is not at all warranted. After the words “for use on roads” there is ‘comma (,): Obviously the Legislature has used the ‘comma’ because it has; used two adjective clauses qualifying the noun ‘vehicle’. The absence of the word “or” is only indicative of the fact that the liability for the tax arises only when both the requirements laid down by the two adjective clauses are fulfilled. The absence of the word “or” is only indicative of the fact that the liability for the tax arises only when both the requirements laid down by the two adjective clauses are fulfilled. If it was the intention of the legislature that the satisfaction of one of the two requirements is sufficient to give rise to a liability for tax, nothing would have been easier for it than to insert the word “or” instead of comma (,) as it now stands. The learned Government Pleader has drawn my attention to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the State v. Jujarasingh1. The charging section in the Act for interpretation before the Court read as follows: “4. (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act or by Rules made thereunder or By any other law for the time being in force, no motor vehicle shall be used in any public place or kept for use in Rajasthan unless the owner thereof has paid, in respect of it, a tax at the appropriate rate specified in the Schedules to this Act within the time allowed by section 5 and, save as hereinafter specified, such tax shall be payable annually notwithstanding that the motor may from time to time cease to be used.” Interpreting this section Modi, J., who delivered the judgment of the Court observed: “Again, section 4, to our mind, clearly lays down that no motor vehicle shall be used in any public place or kept for use in this State unless such tax has been paid. The language of the section is very wide. The prohibition enacted by the section is not merely with reference to the actual use of the motor vehicle without the tax having been paid, but also extends to the keeping of a motor vehicle for use in Rajasthan without payment of the tax. From the language of the section it clearly appears to us that the vehicle may not have been actually used, but if it was being kept for use in this State, then too the liability for tax would arise under this section. From the language of the section it clearly appears to us that the vehicle may not have been actually used, but if it was being kept for use in this State, then too the liability for tax would arise under this section. This intention seems to us to have been made further clear in the following words occurring at the end of sub-section (1), namely: — ‘such tax shall be payable annually notwithstanding that the motor vehicle may from time to time cease to be used ‘.” It should be pointed out that the wording of this section is slightly different from the wording of section 3(1) of the Act. The section of the Rajasthan Act is prohibitory in character and therefore, starts with the negative. It refers to use, actual or intended, in either case it has to be in Rajasthan. The following opinion expressed in paragraph 11 of the judgment summarises his Lordships’ view of the law: “We wish to point out that before a conviction under section 4 read with section 11 of the Act would be justified, on the view of the law which we have propounded the prosecution must establish that the motor vehicle was either used in any public place or kept for use in Rajasthan by the respondent. It is not the case of the prosecution at all that the accused had actually put his vehicle to use.” This decision instead of supporting the prosecution, lends support to the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader made an effort to sustain his view by reference to the proviso to section 3 (1) of the Act. The proviso embodies a concession that is granted to a dealer or manufacturer of motor vehicles. What it lays down is that in respect of motor vehicles kept by a dealer or manufacturer in the State of Mysore for the purpose of sale, he shall be liable for payment of tax only in respect of such vehicles as are permitted to be used on roads in the manner prescribed by the Rules. It would be a great hardship if all the motor vehicles kept by a dealer or manufacturer in his godown or in his workshop are made taxable. They are all suitable for use on roads; they are kept in the State of Mysore. It would be a great hardship if all the motor vehicles kept by a dealer or manufacturer in his godown or in his workshop are made taxable. They are all suitable for use on roads; they are kept in the State of Mysore. So, if section 3(1) stood by itself, all such vehicles would be liable to be taxed without any referen;e to their actual or intended use in the State of Mysore. Therefore, the proviso embodies a concession in the matter of taxation and exempts all vehicles kept by a dealer or, manufacturer from tax except those which are permitted to be used on roads as prescribed by Rules. In passing, I might mention that the learned Sessions Judge has taken a wrong view in regard to the weight of the presumption. It must be conceded that if the accused fails to get the currency of the certificate of registration cancelled or modified by timely intimation as provided by law, a presumption can be raised as laid down by the Explanation in regard to the suitability of the vehicle for use on roads; the presumption does not extend to the requirement of the vehicle being kept in the State of Mysore; but, like all other presumptions, this presumption is rebuttable and the evidence adduced by the accused is sufficient to rebut it. Further the evidence establishes that during the said period, the vehicle was not kept in the State of Mysore. It appears from the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 that the vehicle was in the foundry in Hyderabad from 25th December, 1962 to 6th January, 1964. There is no evidence to the contrary on behalf of the prosecution to show that the vehicle had been kept in the State of Mysore. No doubt, the accused seems to have paid the tax in the month of March but it is urged on his behalf that it was so paid by mistake. Whether there was a mistake or not, is not relevant for the purpose of the present prosecution; all that is necessary to determine is whether the prosecution has established accused’s liability to pay the tax and his failure to pay the same within the prescribed period so as to bring him under the penal provisions of section 12 of the Act. In my opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. In my opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, I hold that the order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law. It is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.