ORDER R.N. Sharma, J. - This is a reference from the Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, recommending that the order of the Railway Magistrate convicting and sentencing the accused, Ramdin u/s 112 of the Indian Railways Act be set aside and fine, if paid, be refunded. 2. I have heard Mr. G.C. Sinha who appears to support reference and the learned Assistant Government Advocate opposes it. 3. Ramdin is a bearer in the refreshment room at Gonda Railway Station. On 7-3-1965 he was founded travelling without ticket or pass by 1 Up Mail running from Gorakhpur towards Luck-now. When checked by a Travelling Ticket Examiner he could not produce a ticket or pass. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted u/s 112 of the Indian Railways Act and was produced before a Railway Magistrate, who was travelling by the same train, at Barabanki Railway Station. The Magistrate proceeded to hold a summary trial. A question was put to Ramdin u/s 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whether he was travelling in III Class of 1 Up Mail from Gorakhpur to Gonda without ticket with the intention of defrauding the Railway Administration and whether thus he committed an offence u/s 112 of the Indian Railways Act. The accused Ramdin replied that he was a bearer in the Railway refreshment room at Conda, that at the moment he was travelling from Mankapur without a ticket or pass that he wanted to be excused, that the offence was admitted by him and that he had nothing more to add. Considering this to be an admission of commission of the offence the Magistrate proceeded u/s 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and convicted Ramdin. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 in addition to the amount due to the Railway as fare. After conviction Ramdin filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Gonda and the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision has made this reference. 4. Two points were urged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge as they have been urged before me against, the validity of Ramdin's conviction. The first argument is that there was violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to an arrested person Under Clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as this arrested person was denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The first argument is that there was violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to an arrested person Under Clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as this arrested person was denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The argument made by the learned Counsel is that Ramdin was placed under arrest when he was checked by a Travelling Ticket Examiner and while under arrest he was placed oh trial before the Railway Magistrate if all haste and he was not asked whether he wanted to consult or to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The second argument is that the statement of Ramdin made before the Railway Magistrate was not in fact an admission of his guilt and compliance of the second part of Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not made inasmuch as the arrested person was not asked if he had any cause to show why he should not be convicted. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted these two contentions made on behalf of Ramdin and in his opinion the order of the learned Magistrate was vitiated. Thus he has made a recommendation for the setting aside of this order. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for Ramdin I am not satisfied that either of these two contentions has any merit. No doubt Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India lays down that a person who is arrested shall not be denied the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. However, the Constitution does not require a Court to ask the accused person specifically whether he would like to consult or to be defended by a legal practitioner. All that the Constitutional provision requires is that if an arrested person wants to consult a lawyer or to be defended by him, he shall not be denied the opportunity to do so. In this case Ramdin was no doubt placed on trial shortly after his arrest but he did not express any intention of consulting a counsel or of being defended by him. If he wanted an opportunity to do so, he could have easily asked the Magistrate to adjourn the trial and give him an opportunity to engage a counsel. In this case Ramdin was no doubt placed on trial shortly after his arrest but he did not express any intention of consulting a counsel or of being defended by him. If he wanted an opportunity to do so, he could have easily asked the Magistrate to adjourn the trial and give him an opportunity to engage a counsel. He stated in very clear terms that he was travelling without a ticket and wanted to be excused. He further stated that he was admitting his guilt. If he considered that he had not committed anything wrong, there was nothing for him to apologise for and further if he did not believe that he had committed any offence by travelling without ticket, there was no point in his admitting his guilt. Furtheron he specifically stated that he did not want to add anything more. It is quite obvious from the statement of Ramdin that he did not want an opportunity to consult or to be defended by a counsel. 7. No doubt the question put to Ramdin by the learned Magistrate was an omnibus question covering the whole case against him but I do not think that he was in any manner prejudiced by being put such a question. Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires two things to be done. The first is that when the accused person appears or is brought before a Magistrate the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him. Such particulars were no doubt stated to him in the question. The second requirement of this section is that the accused person shall be asked if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted. The question was not put to the accused person in this form but it was put to him whether on the facts stated he had committed an offence u/s 112 of the Indian Railways Act. The Applicant stated that he admitted having committed the offence and wanted to be excused. By stating that he be excused he meant to say that he should not be convicted because he wanted forgiveness. So in effect there was full compliance of the requirements of Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Applicant was not prejudiced in any manner. 8. No other point was urged before me. 9. By stating that he be excused he meant to say that he should not be convicted because he wanted forgiveness. So in effect there was full compliance of the requirements of Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Applicant was not prejudiced in any manner. 8. No other point was urged before me. 9. The conviction of the Applicant was correct and I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the trial or conviction of the Applicant. This reference is, therefore, rejected and the conviction and sentence of the Applicant are confirmed.