JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Arun Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgments of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 1 Jhunjhunu. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 167 read with Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for contravention of the order of the Collector regarding requisitioning his Bus No. R.J.P. 1433 for use in the Election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly which were held in March, 1972. The learned Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, who while maintaining his conviction under section 167 read with Section 160 of the Representation of the people Act, reduced the sentence of fine to Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment there of to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court. 2. Upon perusal of the record and hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the public prosecutor, I am of the view that this revision petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason that I the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner did not produce the bus for use in the Election, inspite of the fact that the order in writing requisitioning his bus was served upon his driver Ramu. The petitioner, in his reply to show cause notice took a stand that he brought and produced the bus in compliance with the order of requisition but his bus was not accepted for use in the election by the authorities on the ground of his driver having fallen sick unable to drive the bus. The above pleas taken by the petitioner was disbelieved by both the Courts below and I absolutely see no reason to accept the plea in the absence of any convincing evidence. The petitioner could cause the officer or the authority to be produced in the court to show that in reality his bus was rejected for use in the election but he did not produce him. 3. The petitioner could cause the officer or the authority to be produced in the court to show that in reality his bus was rejected for use in the election but he did not produce him. 3. Consequently, I do not find any substantial ground for interference with the findings of both the courts below as to the petitioner's guilt under section 167 read with section 160 of the Representation of the People Act. The sentence of fine imposed on him by the judicial Magistrate has already been reduced to a considerable extent by the Sessions Judge in appeal. There are no grounds to justify further reduction thereof. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******