- (1.) The accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition against the judgment and order dated 1.12.1998 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 25/1998 whereby the learned appellate Court although affirmed and upheld the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") but at the same time modified the sentence passed by the trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 622/1991 in the manner that benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was extended to him in case he deposits Rs. 10,000/- as prosecution expenses in the trial Court. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and sentenced for simple imprisonment for 15 days and fine of Rs. 250/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 4.5.1989 at 1.15 p.m., when a Bus belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bearing registration No. RNP-760 was checked by the checking party, the petitioner was found discharging duty as conductor in the aforesaid bus and it was found that 15 passengers were not issued tickets despite the fact that fare was paid by them to the petitioner and it was further found that the petitioner negligently and willingly did not issue tickets to eleven and half passengers and for five bicycles although those passengers were willing to pay the fare and freight for the same. On the above-said premises, complaint under the provisions of the Act was submitted against the petitioner before the trial Court and in order to prove the charge, non-petitioner-Corporation produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the allegation and evidence produced by the non-petitioner although he admitted that he was discharging his duty as conductor in the aforesaid bus at the relevant date, time and place. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the aforesaid manner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. but without success although as already stated benefit of probation was extended by the learned appellate Court. Still dissatisfied, the accused-petitioner is before this Court by way of this criminal revision petition.
(2.) Assailing the conviction of the petitioner, learned counsel for him has raised the following grounds:-- (i) The trial in the present case commenced on the basis of a complaint filed by the non-petitioner-Corporation for the offence under Section 8 of the Act but during trial the complaint was neither proved nor exhibited and in absence thereof entire trial including conviction and sentence is illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted on that account alone. It is a legal requirement that in a complaint case, the complaint on the basis of which the criminal proceedings have initiated, is also proved in accordance with law but in the present case the same has not been done and therefore, the entire proceedings are initiated. (ii) For an offence punishable under me provisions of the Act, complaint can be filed by the Corporation or by any authorised officer to which the Corporation delegates its power to file complaint but in me present case, mere is no evidence available on record indicating that the Corporation authorized P.W. 3-Shri Chiranjilal to file complaint and in absence thereof, me trial and the conviction and sentence passed thereupon is illegal and without jurisdiction P.W. 3-Shri Chiranjilal even in his statement made before the Court has not stated that authority was given by the Corporation to him to file the complaint. (iii) To prove the charge levelled against the petitioner, apart from other, the non-petitioner-Corporation has also produced original tickets issued by the checking-party to the passengers to whom the petitioner allegedly did not issue tickets but it has not been explained when tickets were issued to the respective passengers in what circumstances they were procured from them and produced before the Court. Non-explanation of the aforesaid fact is clear indication of the fact mat no passenger was traveling in me aforesaid vehicle without ticket and the checking-party to falsely involve the petitioner is the aforesaid offence, at its own issued tickets and produced the same to substantiate the allegation made against the petitioner. (iv) The evidence available on record indicates that the Presiding Officer of the trial Court was infact heading the checking-party and he was very much present at the time when the vehicle was checked and, therefore, the trial conducted by the same Presiding Officer cannot be said to be a fair trial and as a result of such trial, petitioner could not be convicted and sentenced. (v) It was further contended that although, none of the above grounds was raised in the trial Court as well as before the appellate Court on behalf of the petitioner but he cannot be deprived of to raise the same in this petition for the first time as accused has a right to defend himself even on a ground which was not previously raised. In support of his submissions learned counsel raised upon various rulings.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;