GARG, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 27. 6. 1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 13/1989 by which he partly allowed the appeal of the accused petitioner in the manner that while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence under section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1975") recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport ). Udaipur through judgment dated 1. 12. 1987, he modified the sentence awarded to him by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport), Udaipur through order of sentence dated 1. 12. 1987 in the manner that instead of sentence of one month RI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo ten days SI. sentence of fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days SI was imposed against the accused petitioner.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- On 9. 3. 1982 at about 2. 00 PM, a bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "rsrtc") bearing No. RSM 5673, which was going from Dungarpur to Bhilwara, reached near Amar Ghati and that bus was got stopped and it was checked by the Roadways Magistrate in presence of PW2 Puse Khan, who was at that time ATI and PW3 Sohanlal and in that bus, the accused petitioner was conductor and on checking, it was found that the accused petitioner took fare from 18 passengers, but he intentionally did not issue tickets to them and vehicle inspection report was prepared by PW2 Puse Khan and the same is Ex. P/1 and in that vehicle inspection report Ex. P/1, it was stated that the accused petitioner had himself admitted that he had taken the fare money from the passengers, but did not issue tickets to them. Thereafter, on 26. 4. 1982, a challan for the offence under section 8 of the Act of 1975 was filed against the accused petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. First Class (Transport), Udaipur. On 1. 12. 1982, the contents of the charges for the offence under section 8 of the Act of 1975 were read over and explained to the accused petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused petitioner under section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded and in defence, one witness Ram Singh (DW1) was produced by the accused petitioner. After conclusion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport), Udaipur through judgment and order dated 1. 12. 1987 convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under section 8 of the Act of 1975 and sentenced to undergo one month RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo ten days SI holding inter-alia:- (i) That the accused petitioner took fare money from 18 passengers, but he intentionally did not issue tickets to them and therefore, by doing so, he has committed the offence under section 8 of the Act of 1975 and in coming to the above conclusion, the learned Judicial Magistrate placed reliance on the statements of PW1 Niranjan Lal, PW2 Puse Khan and PW3 Sohanlal. (ii) That the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused petitioner for the offence under section 8 of the Act of 1975. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 1. 12. 1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport), Udaipur, the accused petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur through judgment and order dated 27. 6. 1991 partly allowed the appeal of the accused petitioner in the manner that while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence under section 8 of the Act of 1975 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport), Udaipur through judgment dated 1. 12. 1987, he modified the sentence awarded to him by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport), Udaipur through order of sentence dated 1. 12. 1987 in the manner that instead of sentence of one month RI and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo ten days SI, sentence of fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days SI was imposed against the accused petitioner. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 27. 6. 1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition. In this revision petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Addl. Sessions Judge have given importance to the witnesses produced by the prosecution and they have not considered the evidence of DW1 Ram Singh, independent witness, who had stated on oath that no money was given to the accused petitioner by the passengers. Thus, the findings of facts recorded by both the courts below against the accused petitioner are per se illegal and should be set aside. Hence, it was prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be quashed and set aside and the accused petitioner be acquitted for the offence under section 8 of the Act of 1975. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record of the case. Pw1 Niranjan Lal in his statement recorded in Court has stated that he paid fare money to the accused petitioner, but he was not given ticket by the accused petitioner.
(3.) THE statement of PW1 Niranjan Lal gets further corroboration from the statements of PW2 Puse Khan, who was at the relevant time ATI and PW3 Sohan Lal and both of them have clearly stated that at the time of checking, 18 passengers were found without tickets and that fact was recorded in the inspection report Ex. P/1. In my considered opinion, when there is a categorical statement of these witnesses on the point that the accused petitioner collected fare money from the passengers, but he did not issue tickets to them and apart from this, there is a clear mention of the fact in the inspection report Ex. P/1 that 18 passengers were found without tickets, therefore, in these circumstances, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below against the accused petitioner are not liable to be interfered with by this Court in revisional jurisdiction as it does not appear that they are suffering from manifest illegality or irregularity. The findings of conviction recorded by both the courts below against the accused petitioner are based on correct appreciation of evidence. I see no reason to dissent from the findings arrived at by both courts below. Apart from this, it may be stated here that non-supply of tickets to passengers constitutes offence under section 8 of the Act of 1975 and acceptance of fare from the passengers is not essential ingredient of the offence, as held by this Court in Deen Mohd. vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ). From this point of view also, since 18 passengers were found without tickets and that fact is very well established from the inspection report Ex. P/1, therefore, the case of the prosecution for the offence under section 8 of the Act of 1975 against the accused petitioner stands proved. ;