ORDER : All the above said criminal revision petitions raises a common question before this Court, as such, they are taken together and a common order is passed. In all these cases the case of the prosecution, i.e., the State of Karnataka through R.T.O. Koppal, is that the accused (petitioner herein in the above said cases) is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registered No. KA37/2612. It is the allegation that the petitioner has not paid the taxes for different periods, which are specifically enumerated below. Crl. R.P. No. Crl. A. No. C.C. No. Year 2384/2010 16/2010 768/2006 01.06.2002-28.02.2003 2387/2010 19/2010 769/2006 01.03.2003-30.11.2003 2385/2010 17/2010 770/2006 01.12.2003-31.08.2004 2388/2010 20/2010 771/2006 01.09.2004-31.05.2005 2386/2010 18/2010 772/2006 01.06.2005-28.02.2006 2. It is the allegation of the respondent-State that for the above said periods the registered owner has not paid the tax amount. Therefore, the RTO has issued a demand notices to the accused as the amounts have not been paid, as such charge sheets have been filed showing that the accused has committed such an offences. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined RTO as P.W.1 and got marked relevant documents. The accused has denied the case of the prosecution in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but he did not examine any witness nor got marked any documents. The trial Court has framed the point for consideration and thereafter appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the accused has to pay the taxes to the relevant period, and convicted the accused u/S 12(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (for short ‘Act’) and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.17,100/- and penalty of Rs.5,700/- in C.C. No. 771/2006, fine of Rs.16,927/- and penalty of Rs.5,527/- in C.C. No. 770/2006, fine of Rs.16,320/- and fine of Rs.5,440/- in C.C. No. 769/2006, fine of Rs.16,320/- and fine of Rs.5,440/- in C.C. No. 768/2006, and fine of Rs.17,100/- and fine of Rs.5,700/- in C.C. No. 772/2006. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner approached the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Koppal, at Koppal. The first appellate Court also after re-appreciating the materials on record, confirmed the said judgment of the trial Court upholding the conviction and sentence passed therein. 4. 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Koppal, at Koppal. The first appellate Court also after re-appreciating the materials on record, confirmed the said judgment of the trial Court upholding the conviction and sentence passed therein. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Agency has not made any efforts in this regard to actually find out the truth that the petitioner was not at all in possession of the said vehicle during the period for which the taxes have not been paid by him. It is the specific contention of the accused that the said vehicle was hypothecated to M/S Sreepal Singhvi, a financial institution at Chennai and for the repayment of the said loan towards the said hypothecation, the said M/S Sreepal Singhvi, Chennai, the financier had seized the vehicle and the same was informed by the accused orally to the RTO, Koppal. In fact this was brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer but he has not made any efforts to find out the truth or otherwise of the said statement of the accused. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that both the Courts have shifted the responsibility of proving that the said vehicle was repossessed by M/S Sreepal Singhvi, Chennai, on the accused, instead of casting burden on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that as on those dates for which the taxes were not paid, the vehicle was actually in possession of the accused. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has brought to the notice of the said provision of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules (for short ‘Rules’) particularly referring to Rule 34 and 34A and form No. 30, submitted that it is the burden on the accused to show that immediately after seizure of the said vehicle the intimation in writing should be given to the RTO and that intimation has to be furnished to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of holding that the accused was not in possession of the said vehicle as on that particular date and this is the mandatory provision under the Rules that the accused should have been done otherwise he has to prove that the vehicle was actually not in his possession as on that particular date. 6. 6. In this background this Court examined Rule 34 and 34A of the Rules, which reads as under:- 34. Vehicles exempted from tax under Section 16. 1. Any person claiming exemption from payment of tax under any notification issued under Section 16 in respect of any motor vehicle, shall apply in Form 14 in triplicate, to the Regional Transport Officer, within whose jurisdiction such vehicle suitable for use is kept, together with such other particulars as that authority may require and obtain a (taxation card and the necessary endorsement thereon) after satisfying the Regional Transport Officer that the vehicle is exempted from payment of the tax. 2. If the Regional Transport Officer is satisfied that the vehicle is exempted from payment of tax, he shall issue a tax free taxation card with the word “Exempted” endorsed in such taxation card specifying the period of exemption;) 3. The application under sub-rule (1) shall be made to the Regional Transport Officer, in the case of any vehicle kept outside the State before the entry of such vehicle into the State and in the case of any vehicle kept within the State, within seven days of the expiry of the (period for which the endorsement has been made in the taxation card), if any, last issued in respect of such vehicle. 4. The fee for the issue of a Tax Free taxation card shall be Rs.5. 5. When a vehicle exempted from the payment of tax under Section 16 is used for the purpose or operation in contravention of Rule 36, the tax, as the case may be; for the quarter, half year or the year in which such contravention took place shall be paid within a period not exceeding fifteen days from the date of such contravention. 34A. Intimation of nonuse of vehicles. 1. Intimation of nonuse of motor vehicle granted exemption from payment of tax under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of subsection (i) of Section 16 of the Act, shall be in Form No. 30. 2. For every intimation of nonuse of vehicle, a fee of rupees one hundred shall be paid along with Form 30. For every application, for extension of period of nonuse, a renewal fee of rupees one hundred shall be paid by the applicant. 7. 2. For every intimation of nonuse of vehicle, a fee of rupees one hundred shall be paid along with Form 30. For every application, for extension of period of nonuse, a renewal fee of rupees one hundred shall be paid by the applicant. 7. On meticulous understanding of these provisions they do clearly indicate that nonuser of motor vehicle by the registered owner of the vehicle shall be intimated in person or by means of a registered post acknowledgement due to the RTO in Form No. 30 of the Rules along with the prescribed bee. If this legal requirement is not complied, for all practical purposes, a registered owner of the vehicle continues to be in legal possession of the vehicle, though actual possession might have lost by the owner. 8. In this background if the material on record is seen, the revision petitioner has not at all led any evidence nor produced any document before the Court that he has complied with this legal requirement. But, according to him, he has only intimated the Investigating Officer that he was not in possession of the vehicle during those periods, which will not in any manner substitute the compliance of legal requirement. Under the above said facts and circumstances, both the Courts have considered in detail with regard to the factual aspects and legal requirement. There is no reason or room to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court or the first appellate Court in this regard. Hence, revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed.