N. K. JAIN J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 22. 7. 1981 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, whereby he dismissed the appeal against the judgment dated 26. 6. 1979 passed by the Magistrate (Roadways), Hanumangarh, the conviction and sentence under section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticket-less Travel), Act, 1975, to one month imprisonment was maintained.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are as follows :-Harnath Singh, the accused-petitioner was Bus Conductor in the employment of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ' the Corporation' ). THE accused petitioner was the Conductor of Bus No. R. S. M. 1624, on 26. 6. 1979, while going on the route from Sardarshahar to Bhadra, near Dabri-Choti at about 13-30 hrs. One Chater Singh Traffic Inspector of the Corporation, on checking, found 46 persons were travelling without tickets. A complaint was submitted before the learned Magistrate (Roadways) at Camp Dabri, who explained the substance of accusation and asked whether he pleads guilty or wants to defend himself, in reply he admitted his guilt. The learned Magistrate, thereupon convicted the accused under section 8 of the Rajasthan State Transport Service (Prevention of Ticket-less Travel) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to one months' simple Imprisonment. The accused petitioner preferred ah appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, vide his order dated 22-7-1981, which has been challenged in this revision. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner Mr. Vijay Bishnoi has submitted that on the basis of particulars stated to the accused, no offence could be made under section 8 of the Act. He further submitted that the accused petitioner was not given any opportunity to consult with his lawyer and to defend his properly, and even if, the accused has pleaded guilty, it cannot be said to be made with a free will. As such no conviction and sentence can be passed. Therefore, the trial is liable to be vitiated. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the decision of this Court, Jagmala Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (l ). Mr. R. N. Munshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation has submitted that the order of conviction was based only on the plea of guilt by the accused himself, so, the question of any legal assistance does not arise, Therefore, no interference is called for by this Hon'ble Court.
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, V. S. Choudhary has submitted that there is a concurrent finding arrived at by both the courts below on the fact of admission of guilt, made with free will, by the accused petitioner it could not be said that it is unreasonable. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The points emerge for consideration are that whether on pleading guilty, still, the opportunity of legal assistance is necessary for the accused petitioners and whether the plea of guilt will amount to, in the facts and circumstances of the case, not voluntarily made. To decide these controversies, it is necessary to look into the various provisions of this Act. ;