JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-moved by Jai Singh, a Conductor, who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Services (Prevention of ticket-less travel.) Act, 1975 herein after referred to "The Act". It arrises in the following circumstances. 2. The accused-petitioner was a conductor of a Bus No. RSG 6018, belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, and on October 21, 1978, while he was on the bus as the Conducted, and the bus was going from Jodhpur to Ganganagar, the bus was checked near Malikesar, and it was found that there were two ticket-less travellers, who, according to the learned counsel or the petitioner, were the conductors of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, and they were carrying a tin of Ghee weighing 16 kgs. It was found that the accused-petitioner, whose duty was to give tickets to the passengers, and half ticket for 16 kgs. of Ghee. A complaint was filed before the Mobile Magistrate at the road side, and it is said that the accused-petitioner pleaded guilt, and he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment, to undergo seven day's simple imprisonment. The accused-petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Shriganganagar, who dismissed the same. 3. The law is settled that the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are unlimited, but, the same is to be exercised sparingly and for the purposes mentioned therein i. e. to present the abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. If taking the case of the prosecution as it is, it Is found that no case is made out against the accused, and still the accused has been convicted and sentenced, then, a case for interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be said to be made out, because it can then be said that the accused has been convicted on no evidence. In such a case interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice will be necessary. 4. In such a case interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice will be necessary. 4. Therefore, if in the instant case, taking the facts and the evidence as they are it can be said that in the alleged plea of guilt of the accused, the accused pleaded guilty to all the ingredients of an of under Section 8 of the Act. than no case for interference will be made out. But, if it is found that the accused did not admit the necessary ingredients of Section 8 of the Act, there is no offence under Section 8 of the Act and even then he has been convicted and sentenced, then this Court will interfere in this case. 5. The undisputed facts are that the accused-petitioner had not taken any fare from the two passengers and also for 16 kgs. tin of Ghee, for which, the passengers should have taken half ticket. The accused-petitioner was a conductor, and he allowed the two passengers to travel in the bus though they had not paid fare and he failed to issue proper tickets. Under Section 9 of the Act breach of duty imposed on the conductor under Section 3 of the Act, is made punishable. Section 3 and 8 of the Act are reproduced below:- "3. Supply of tickets on payment of fares - Every person desirous of travelling in a motor vehicle shall, upon payment of his fare, be supplied by the conductor a ticket containing such particulars as may be prescribed. 8. Section 3 and 8 of the Act are reproduced below:- "3. Supply of tickets on payment of fares - Every person desirous of travelling in a motor vehicle shall, upon payment of his fare, be supplied by the conductor a ticket containing such particulars as may be prescribed. 8. Breach of duty Imposed under Section 3 - If a conductor or any other person authorised by the Corporation, whose duty is to supply a ticket to a person who travels or intends to travel in a motor vehicle on payment of fare by him, negligently or wilfully omits to supply proper ticket to such person or supplies to him an invalid ticket when demanded by such person, he shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both, in addition to any disciplinary action for such misconduct, which he is liable to undergo under the conditions of his service." A reading of Section 3 of the act will leave no room for doubt that a duty has been cast on the conductor to supply a ticket to a person, desirous of travelling in a motor vehicle, only upon payment of fare to him by such person. The conductor does not owe a duty under Section 3 of the Act to issue a ticket to a passenger who does not pay fare to him. Section 4 of the Act provides that no person shall enter or remain in any motor vehicles for the purpose of travelling therein unless he has with him a proper pass or ticket. The breach of Section 4 has been made punishable under section 6 of the Act. and as such, a passenger who enters or remains in a motor vehicle for the purpose of travelling therein without a proper pass or ticket, is liable to be convicted under Section 6 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act empowers the Conductor to remove any person from the motor vehicle who travels or attempts to travel therein without having proper pass or ticket with him. 6. Section 9 of the Act empowers the Conductor to remove any person from the motor vehicle who travels or attempts to travel therein without having proper pass or ticket with him. 6. The learned advocates for Corporation submits that Section 8 of the Act deals with two types of persons, one type is of those persons from whom fare has been realised and the ticket has not been given; and the other type is of those persons, who, intend to travel on payment, but to whom the conductor negligently or will-fully omits to issue a ticket. "Such person" in between the words "proper ticket to" and "supplies to him", to my mind means, such a person who travels on payment of fare, and also who intends to travel on payment of fare, and to whom, the conductor, negligently or wilfully omits to supply proper ticket. The question of supplying proper ticket to a passenger or intending passenger will only arise after the payment . of fare by the conductor to issue a ticket to a passenger if the fare is paid by him. * The conductor owes a duty to issue a ticket on payment of fare to him, and if a ticket is not given after the payment of fare by the passenger, the person commits branch of his duty under Section 3 of the Act. 7. In the instant case the petitioner only pleaded that he negligently or wilfully omitted to issue tickets to the passengers. Neither it was the case or he was asked or admit that on payment of fare by the two passengers he did so. Therefore the alleged plea of guilt of the accused does not amounted a plea of guilt of the Act. The admission of the various ingredients which together go out to make an offence can alone amount to a guilty plea by accused. 8. It is contended by the learned advocate for the Corporation that a look at the statement of object and reasons of the Act will make it clear that the Act was made to check the evils of the ticket-less travelling in the buses of the Rajasthan State Read Transport Corporation. Therefore, submits the learned counsels Section 8 I should be interpreted in such a manner which may advance the object of the act rather than defeat it. Therefore, submits the learned counsels Section 8 I should be interpreted in such a manner which may advance the object of the act rather than defeat it. The question of interpretation will arise if there are two meanings. In case, the words used are not ambiguous, the question of interpretation does not arises. A reading of Sections 3 and 8 will make it clear that the breach of duty of the conductor to give tickets to such passengers and not who pay fare to him alone has been made punishable. 9. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it is a case where the plea of the accused is not a plea of guilt of an offence under Section 8 of the Act. but still the accused has been convicted and sentenced without the offence being made against him. This is an abuse of the process of the Court. 10. In the result, the application is allowed. The conviction of the accused under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. The fine if deposited, be refunded to him. Mr. Munshi prays that he wants to go to Supreme Court in appeal. But, as the case is decided on its own facts and on Section 8 of the Act it cannot be said to be a fit case for leave to appeal. The prayer of Mr. Munshi is therefore rejected. Sd/- M.B. SharmaApplication u/s 482 Cr. P.C. allowed. *******