- (1.) THIS Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated July 31,1992, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, in Criminal Revision No. 97/90, by which, the sentence and fine imposed on the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal case No. 146 of 1980 has been maintained.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner, who was working as Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, 'rsrtc'), was discharging his duty on January 29, 1980 at Bus No. 9112, which was running on the route of Chomahala to Jhalawar. This vehicle was checked and it was found that 22 passengers were travelling without ticket. A complaint was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Roadways), Ajmer, who, after recording statements of Khushi Ram (P. W. 1), Hetram (P. W. 2) and Devilal (D. W. I), convicted the petitioner vide order dated December 17, 1988, under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 (for short, 'the Act, 1975' ). The petitioner was punished with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. The petitioner filed appeal against the same, which was dismissed, as stated above. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, that no offence is made out against the petitioner as provided under Section 8 of the Act, 1975. The learned counsel read out the statements of PW1 and PW 2 and pointed out certain contradictions. It was further pointed out that PW 1 Khushi Ram is an Inspector of RSRTC and he checked the bus, therefore, his evidence is based on hear say and no reliance can be placed on the same. It was also pointed out that, in any case, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Probation, since it is his first offence and is of minor nature. A bare reading of Section 8 of the Act, 1975 will show that it is duty of the Conductor to charge fare and, upon payment of fare to supply a ticket to a person, who travels or intends to travel in a motor vehicle. If he negligently or wilfully omits to charge fare or supply proper ticket to such person or supplies to him an invalid ticket when demanded by such person, he shall be liable to be punished as provided thereunder. The contention of the learned counsel is that it is necessary that first it must be proved that the petitioner charged the amount of fare from passengers and then alone offence can be said to be made out for not supplying the ticket. A bare reading of this Section, as stated above, shows that the Conductor is liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 8, if he negligently or wilfully omits to charge the fare or supply proper ticket to such person, who has paid fare to him. Therefore, a duty is cast on the Conductor to charge fare from the passengers and also to supply tickets to the passengers on payment of fare. Moreover, from the statement of PW 2 Hetram, who is passenger, it is clear that Rs. 20/- were paid to the petitioner for 8-9 persons, who were travelling in the bus alongwith him. The contention of the learned counsel that fare for so many persons will be more than the payment alleged to have been received, therefore, no reliance can be placed on this witness, has no force. It is quite likely that when a conductor wants to take money without giving proper ticket, he is likely to take less amount to lure the passengers, who travel without ticket by paying lesser amount than required to be paid as fare. The other contradictions pointed out are minor in nature and have no bearing on the merits of the case. Both the courts have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of committing offence under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1975. I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of both the courts. So far as the prayer for granting the benefit of Probation to the petitioner is concerned, even though this prayer was made during the course of arguments, but in the memo of revision petition, no such ground has been taken. This prayer was also made before both the lower courts. The offence committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be of minor nature. The public undertakings run in the loss only on account of not charging fares of the tickets from the passengers by those persons, like petitioner, who are assigned this duty. I, therefore, do not think it appropriate to give any benefit of Probation to the petitioner. In the result, there is no force in this revision petition, which is, therefore, dismissed, in limine. .;