JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition of accused Chander Singh is directed against the appellate judgement of learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, dated January 12, 1971, by which he has upheld the trial court's judgement convicting and sentencing him of offences under section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act" and rules 116, 106, 121, 167 and 84 (c) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". The allegation against the petitioner was that he was driving bus No. RJY 1298 on December 5, 1966, from Ajmer to Bhilwara, when he committed the six offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300/- in all. 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition could not have been convicted of the offence u/s 86 (1) because there was no evidence to show that any police officer in uniform made a demand for the production of his licence for examination. The learned public prosecutor has frankly conceded that there is justification for this argument, and it appears that the conviction and the sentences of the petitioner for the offence under section 86 read with section 112 of the Act cannot be sustained and must be set aside. 3. It has next been argued that the petitioner could not have been convicted for violation of R 106 of the Rules for non production of Part A of the permit as there was non-evidence to prove that it was demanded by any transport officer or a police officer. Learned Public Prosecutor has frankly conceded that there is justification for this argument also, so that the conviction and the sentence on this count cannot also be sustained. 4. Then it has been argued that there is no satisfactory evidence to justify the conviction of the petitioner for breach of rule 167 of the Rules, because P.C.Jain has not stated that he examined the speedometer mechanically in order to see whether it was in a working condition. The argument is not tenable because P.C. Jain has stated that he was travelling in bus, & he therefore had the opportunity of nothing whether the speedometer was working or was out of order. Moreover, his statement that the speedometer was not in a working condition, was not challenged in cross examination. The argument is not tenable because P.C. Jain has stated that he was travelling in bus, & he therefore had the opportunity of nothing whether the speedometer was working or was out of order. Moreover, his statement that the speedometer was not in a working condition, was not challenged in cross examination. It is therefore, futile to argue that there was no evidence to justify the conviction of the petitioners on this account. 5. It has next been argued that when conductor Irshad Ahmed, who was in the bus on the date of the incident, has been let off with a lesser fine, there could be no justification for imposing a higher penalty on the petitioner. It appears that a lenient view was taken in the case of the conductor because he had pleaded guilty at the trial. There is therefore, no justification for the argument of the learned counsel. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed to the extent that the conviction of the petitioner is set aside in so far as it relates to the offences under section 86 of the Act and rule 106 of the Rules read with section 122 of the Act. He is acquitted of those offences, and the fine, if realised shall be remitted to him. The revision petition fails in regard to the other offences and is dismissed. *******