Judgment This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Nagercoil, Mrs. Anna Chandi, in Crl. R. P. No. 26 of 1955, in C.C. No. 1730 of 1954, First Class Bench Magistrate's Court, Nagercoil. The facts are: Lorry T.C.T. No. 1264 orginally belonged to V. Shanmugham who is the accused in this case. That Shanmugham sold the lorry to one P. Sivagnanam Pillai. Though section 31(1) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act enjoins only upon the transferee the obligation to report to the registering authority and forward the certificate of registration to the registering authority within 30 days and the law casts no duty on the transferor, the accused sent a registered intimation of the transfer on 8th January, 1954 and sent a copy of the communication along with his reply to the notice dated 16th June, 1954. The latter fact is admitted by P.W. 2, though he wanted to say that the letter dated 8th January, 1954 was not received in his section. But the accused has produced the anchal receipt for sending the letter as well as the copy of the letter before the Court. In other words, it is established that after the sale to Sivagnanam Pillai the accused has intimated the transfer without practicable delay. But unfortunately the communication of the accused was not acted upon and inasmuch as Sivagnanam Pillai did not discharge the duty laid upon him of intimating the transfer and sending the certificate of registration, the name of Shanmugham continued to be on the books as owner of the lorry, T.C.T. No. 1264. H.C. 2159 on 20th January, 1954 and H.C. 2297 on 23rd January, 1954 were checking vehicles and they found that this lorry did not exhibit the tax license, though it was playing on the Nagercoil-Trivandrum route. The registers at the police station showed Shanmugham as the owner. Therefore, Shanmugham has been prosecuted. In the Court of First Class Bench of Magistrates, the plea of this Shanmugham was not accepted and the Bench Magistrates supported their judgment by saying that the accused has not cared to adduce evidence in his defence. They thought that it was incumbent on him to report the transfer and prove it, whereas under section 31 (1) the obligation is on the transferee. They thought that it was incumbent on him to report the transfer and prove it, whereas under section 31 (1) the obligation is on the transferee. They found this accused guilty of an offence punishable under sections 7(1) , 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.10. What is more, he was also directed to pay the tax for the first quarter of 1954. There was an appeal there from and the learned Sessions Judge, Mrs. Anna Chandi has taken, in my opinion, the correct view that there was no obligation on the part of the transferor to notify the transfer and send the registration certificate and that this was plainly the duty of the transferee and that in this case, as a matter of fact, the transferor has taken the precaution of notifying the transfer and that the office people never gave effect to it and issued notice to the transferor and that because in their registers the name of this Shanmugham was shown as the owner they have prosecuted him and that this prosecution and conviction were unsustainable, and hence made this reference for quashing the conviction. I accept the reference and quash the conviction and acquit Shanmugham and direct that the fine amount and the tax amount be refunded to him. The police should pursue their remedies against the transferee. R.M.-----Reference accepted and conviction quashed.