ABDUL HAKEEM Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(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:--

(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.