( 1 ) THE question that arises in this revision petition is whether the conductor of a stage carriage, while on duty, is liable to be punished under rule 48 (1) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules 1963, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'rules', for non-issue of tickets to passengers travelling or intending to travel in a stage carriage, when there is no evidence to show that he received the legal fare. ( 2 ) THE facts are these: The accused who is the petitioner herein, was the conductor of a bus bearing number MYF6431 belonging to the msrtc. on 24-9-1970. On that day the bus in question was travelling from malebennur to Shimoga. The Sub Inspector of Police attached to MSRTC. squad Suryanarayana (PW. 1) and Assistant Traffic Inspector attached to the squad (PW. 2) were going to Harihar from Shimoga in a jeep on that day and at a place called Kadadakatte, these two officers examined the bus in question and found that the accused was the conductor and also found 9 passengers travelling without tickets. They came to know on enquiry that the accused had collected the legal fare of Rs. 2 from each of these 9 passengers and they were travelling from Malebennur to Shimoga. The evidence of these witnesses is to the effect that they produced these 9 ticketless passengers in the police station for being prosecuted. They have stated that they issued a notice as per Ex. P-1 serving a copy of it on the accused asking him to appear in Court on 28-9-70 to answer the charge. In Ex. P-1, the place of checking had been mentioned as 'arahatti'. The copy of the notice got served on the accused also shows that the place of checking was Arahatti. Subsequently, in Ex. P-1 Arahatti has been scored out and the name 'kadadakatte' has been written in ink. The evidence is that Ex. P-1 was written at the place of checking and a copy of it was served on the accused himself. If the place of checking was arahatti as originally written and if the bus had been checked there, probably there would have been no contravention of any sub-rule of Rule 48 of the Rules. At any rate, I am unable to understand why the place of checking has been changed. If the place of checking was arahatti as originally written and if the bus had been checked there, probably there would have been no contravention of any sub-rule of Rule 48 of the Rules. At any rate, I am unable to understand why the place of checking has been changed. One rational explanation is that if the place of checking really was at Arahatti and if nine passengers were found 'travelling without tickets from Malebennur to Shimoga, as it was sought to be made out and if Arahatti is not within these two places, then these two officials would be confronted to explain how these 9 ticketless persons were travelling from Malebennur to Shimoga. That is the reason why they have changed the name of the place of checking from Arahatti to kadadakatte. ( 3 ) THE material placed on record shows that the 9 ticketless travellers were not produced before the Police on that day nor were they prosecuted, but a list of nine persons has been produced, wherein it has been mentioned that they have undertaken to appear before the police on 26-9- 1970. Therefore, it is clear that these nine persons were not produced before the Police on that day. Whether they were subsequently prosecuted as per the notice and whether they appeared on 28-9-1970 in any Court and whether they were convicted, no material has been placed on record. The evidence of these two witnesses is that on enquiry from these 9 ticketless passengers they came to know that these 9 passengers had paid the fare. None of them has been examined in this case in support of their version. The evidence given by them is hearsay evidence on the basis of which no court could base a conviction. Their evidence does not conclusively establish that the accused had failed to issue tickets after receiving legal fare from them. Nor is it proved that the 9 ticketless passengers were travelling in the bus when it was checked either at Arahatti or at Kadadakatte without tickets. Their evidence does not conclusively establish that the accused had failed to issue tickets after receiving legal fare from them. Nor is it proved that the 9 ticketless passengers were travelling in the bus when it was checked either at Arahatti or at Kadadakatte without tickets. ( 4 ) RULE 48 (10) of the Rules provides that the conductor of a stage carriage while on duty shall issue vo every passenger travelling or intending to travel in the stage carriage and to every consignor of goods, a ticket on receipt of the legal fare, or freight charged for carrying in the vehicle the passenger and his personal luggage or the goods consigned as the case may be, except where arrangement outside the vehicle for the issue of ticket in advance has been made. Contravention of this provision is punishable under S. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is, therefore, clear from this rule that the conductor, while on duty, shall issue to every passenger travelling or intending to travel in the stage carriage a ticket on receipt of legal fare. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, there is no evidence from what place the passengers boarded the bus nor is there any evidence to show that the accused failed to issue tickets on receipt of legal fare irom them. The accused has merely admitted that when the bus was checked by these two witnesses, 53 adult and two child-passengers were in the bus. PW. 2 has admitted that the cash with the accused was not checked. In fact, if the passengers that were travelling in the bus had paid the legal fare and the accused had issued tickets to them, then the accused is not liable to be punished under this rule. There is nothing to show that the accused had not issued tickets to these 55 passengers, nor is there any indication to show that out of these 55 passengers, 9 passengers were travelling without tickets after paying their legal fare. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 does not bring the case of the accused within the purview of Rule 48 (10) of the Rules. In that view, he is not liable to be convicted under Rule 48 (10 ). ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I allow this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused and acquit him. In that view, he is not liable to be convicted under Rule 48 (10 ). ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I allow this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused and acquit him. The fine, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioner. --- *** --- .