Harnath Singh vs State of Rajasthan

N.K. Jain, J.—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 u/s 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel), Act, 1975, to one month imprisonment was maintained.

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 Chatar Singh, Trafic 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 u/s 8 of the Rajasthan State Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') and sentenced him to one months'' Simple Imprisonment.

The accused petitioner preferred an 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 u/s 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 v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1982 RLR 903.

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.

Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. V.S. Choudhary has submitted that there is 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 leagal 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.

The Act has been enacted with a view to provide revenue and to prevent ticketless travelling on Motor Vehicles, operated by the Corporation.

Section 3 of the Act deals with the provision to supply tickets on payment of fare by the conductors. Section 4 of the Act prohibits the travelling without passes or tickets. Section 6 provides punishment for travelling without proper passes or tickets and as per Section 5 of the Act which provides obligation to show passes or tickets on requisition by the Conductor or any other servant of the Corporation at or before the end of the journey. Section 8 of the Act deals with the breach of duty imposed u/s 3 of the Act and Section 11 deals with the trial of such offences during the course of journey. Therefore, the Magistrate could have tried an offence even by road side on the basis of spot checking with a view to check free travelling through Mobile Courts, as he has authority to try any offence any where within his jurisdiction. In case, spot checking is not held and tried instantly then afterwards on reaching the destination copassengers travelling in the Bus will not be available as witness. Certainly, the disposal will be delayed as passengers will not like to or will care to attend the cases on reaching the destination afterwards for evidence. Therefore, for such petty offences, if, the cases are adjourned and or, if, the Magistrate does not ask for time to have their counsel and adjourn the case for elaborate enquiry, even, on the plead of guilt, the object and purpose of immediate disposal at the spot will be futile exercise.

The relevant provision of sections 251 and 252 are reproduced as under:

Section 251 Cr. P.C.:

When in summon cases the accused appears of is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused, shall be stated to him and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.

Section 252 Cr. P.C.:

Conviction on plea of guilt if the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the pleas as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused and may, in his discrition convict him thereon.

In case of Jagmala Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Had Ram v. State, the accused-appellants have not pleaded guilty and claimed trial, as the conviction was without giving opportunity. The accused were not allowed to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, no question was allowed to be put by them to any of the witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the prosecution, under these circumstances, the learned Judge remained the case for retrial by a common order, as right of hearing Under Article 22 of the Constitution was deprived.

In cases where the accused had admittedly neglected or wilfully omitted the duty to supply the proper tickets to the passengers or to allow them to enter in vehicle without issuing proper tickets and fare being charged from them, even in such cases, when on pleading guilty, the further opportunity is given, the object and purpose of the Mobile Courts will be frustrated.

As observed in case of Shahdool Haque v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies Bihar and Ors. 1974 SC 1896, it could not serve any useful purpose to give them further opportunity to disprove what he practically admitted i.e. the guilt. The case of Jagmala Ram (supra) are based on peculiar circumstance of that case wherein this Court was examining two sets of cases simultaneously viz. two accused pleaded not guilty and one accused pleaded gulty. It is a settled law that a precedent is an authority for what it decided and not what can be deduced from it, as observed in case of M/s Ashoka Foundry and Metal Works (P) Ltd. v. State and Ors. reported in 1988 (1) RLR 83. Each criminal case depends upon its own facts and circumstances, so, the observation made in case of Jagmala Ram (supra) are not helpful in the present case.

The other point advanced and argued that the plea of guilt cannot be said to be voluntraily recorded before the Magistrate at road site.

In the instant case, admittedly, on checking, 46 persons were found without tickets and accused-petitioner had collected money from some of the passengers but did not issue tickets to them. Under these circumstances, he admitted his fault and pleaded guilty, cannot be termed as without a free will. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plea of guilt made by the accused was not voluntary. Thus, the observations made in Jagmala Ram''s case (supra) are not helpful in deciding the controversy in hand.

In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion, that the accused-petitioner has admitted his guilt when the substance of accusation was stated to him by the learned Magistrate, therefore, it was not necessary to give further opportunity and further it cannot be said that the plea of guilt was due to some influence of the Magistrate, present at the road site. Therefore, looking to the above facts, the conviction has rightly been awarded by the two courts-below and no interference is called for.

Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner states that since this being the first offence of the accused, the incident had taken place in June, 1979, he has also remained in jail for 11 days, it would not be proper to resent the accused-petitioner to jail, therfore, he is entitled for the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders'' Act.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation Mr. Munshi and the learned Public Prosecutor oppose this prayer.

I have considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel and in the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion, that the ends of justice would be served, if, the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders'' Act be extended to the Accused-petitioner.

In the result, the revision petition of the accused- petitioner Harnath Singh is partly allowed, the conviction u/s 8 of the Act is maintained but it is, hereby, ordered that Harnath Singh be released on probation on his entering into a personal hand in the sum of Rs. 1000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate (Roadways), Hanumangarh, to appear before him and receive the sentence whenever he is called upon to do so during the period of six months and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The accused-petitioner is allowed two months'' time to furnish his bail bonds.