JUDGMENT 1. - These three revision petitions have been preferred against the judgment of the Acting Sessions Judge, Jhujhunu, dated 11th November, 1978, dismissing the appeals of the petitioners. 2. The facts giving rise to these revision petitions are that on 10th Nov. 78, the Roadways Magistrate, Hanumangarh, checked the roadways bus No. RSM 9956, near Village Khasoli, and found the petitioners travelling without tickets. The Roadways Magistrate tried these petitioners, and as they were travelling without tickets, he punished each petitioner to I month's SI u/s 6 of the Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Services (Prevention of Ticket less Travelling), Act, 1975 (Hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). Against the said judgment of the learned Magistrate, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The learned Sessions Judge was on leave. So the said appeals were heard by the Acting Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. After hearing both the sides, the learned Acting Sessions Judge on 1 1th Nov. 78, dismissed their appeals holding that the said court had no jurisdiction to hear those appeals. According to him, the place of commission or trial of the offence did not confer any jurisdiction to hear those appeals and that the said court lacked inherent jurisdiction. 3. The petitioners were trien by the learned Magistrate having his headquarters at Hanumangarh. So, the jurisdiction of hearing appeals against the said judgment of the learned Magistrate, lay within the powers of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. As the appeals were preferred before the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, the said court had no jurisdiction to hear those appeals, which should have been preferred before the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. In such circumstances, it was held by the learned Acting Sessions Judge that he had no jurisdiction to entertain those appeals. 4. Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Acting Sessions Judge has committed an error in dismissing the appeals. In D.B. Cr. Reference No. 1/1981 (The State v. Babu Khan) and in D.B. Cr. Reference No. 5/1981 (Bharat Singh & Ors. v. The State) , it has been I held by this Court that the Sessions Judge in whose jurisdiction, the I offence was committed, has jurisdiction to try the case. In view of the judgments referred to above, of this Court, it is clear that the learned Acting Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, has committed an error in rejecting the appeals of the petitioners. 5. In view of the judgments referred to above, of this Court, it is clear that the learned Acting Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, has committed an error in rejecting the appeals of the petitioners. 5. The roadways bus was checked by the Roadways Magistrate at Khasoli, which was under the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu. The bus was coming from Jhunjhunu and going to Sardarshar via Churu. The Roadways Magistrate had jurisdiction over Ganganagar District as well as Jhunjhunu District also. No doubt, be had his headquarters at Hanumangarh. The bus was checked within jurisdiction of Jhunjhunu Sessions division. 6. Hence, the appeals against the judgment of the Roadways Magistrate having his headquarters at Hanumangarh, could have been heard by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, in whose jurisdiction, the offence was committed by the petitioners. Therefore, the learned Acting Sessions Judge had committed error, and his judgment cannot be maintained. 7. In the result, the revision petitions are accepted. The judgment of the learned Acting Sessions Judge, dated 11th Nov. 78, is set aside. The appeals are remanded back to the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. with the direction to dispose of the appeals of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law.Revision accepted. *******