JUDGMENT 1. - Two points have been raised by Mr Surana the first is that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction because under Section 11 the jurisdiction to try and conduct cases of Roadways was handed over to the Magistrate at Jaipur. 2. In this respect Mr. Surana invited attention to the notification dated 25-11-76 in which Roadways Magistrate at Jaipur has been given the jurisdiction of Tonk district. He relied upon l967 Cr. L.J. 881 and AIR 1942 Cal. 496 and argued that the jurisdiction cannot be changed. 3. Mr. Purohit contended that Section 482, Cr. P.C. cures all the irregularities.Mr. Surana submits that when there is a complete lack of jurisdiction, it cannot be cured as an irregularity, and relies upon AIR 1954 SC 340 and 362 and AIR 1977 SC 1101 . He further argued that the Inspector had no authority to check and this point could have been considered by the Special court only. 4. Mr. Surana further argued that the challan could not have been filed and a complaint only should have been filed, because there is a special statute. Mr. Surana relied upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court Sunder Das v. State of Rjas than reported in AIR 1979 Raj. 232 , wherein such cases probation should be allowed. 5. Mr. Purohit has vehemently opposed the application. 6. On a thoughtful consideration of the entire matter. I find that none of these objections were raised before, the trial court. When the appeal was filled, even in the appeal none of these objections were raised and the counsel who argued the appeal submitted that he would not like to press the appeal. 7. Mr. Surana concedes that no reason has been given in the memo of petition filed here as to why the counsel conceded and did not press the appeal before the appellate court. 8. It is true that this court is not bound by the contention of a counsel in a criminal case, and if justice and law so require, the court can interfere in a given case, because in criminal cases it is the primary duty of the court to ensure that no injustice is done. 9. In the present case, however. 8. It is true that this court is not bound by the contention of a counsel in a criminal case, and if justice and law so require, the court can interfere in a given case, because in criminal cases it is the primary duty of the court to ensure that no injustice is done. 9. In the present case, however. I find that the peculiar features of the case are that a conductor allowed 15 passengers to travel in a bus after taking money of the tickets and misappropriated it to himself by not giving the tickets. This finding which is very crucial has neither been challenged in the first appellate court, nor before this court. 10. I am of the opinion that this makes out a case of moral terpitude and is not an ordinary case of simple hurt or unlawful assembly as the case was in Sunderdas v. the State of Raj. .(supra) relied upon by Mr. Surana. That was a case where some incident took place on account of some family quarrel and there was some marpit, and in such circumstances benefit of probation was given. 11. A civil servant or an employee of the Corporation who indulges himself in an offence of a serious nature of terpitude where not one but 15 passengers were asked to pay money for purchase of tickets, and that money was kept by himself and the tickets were not issued, deserves no benefit of probation. 12. So far as the objection regarding jurisdiction, for filing a complaint and not challan, and the capacity of Inspector to check etc. are concerned, they all could have been gone into in details, if the objections would have been raised at the appropriate stage. Before me a notification in a cyclostyle form, not signed, has been placed to show the jurisdiction having been taken away from Tonk district in 1976 and it is difficult for this court to go into this matter at this belated stage now. 13. I am of the opinion that the inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked to give a fresh start to these controversies and in any case looking to the nature and conduct of the petitioner he hardly deserves any sympathy for exercising inherent powers. 14. Consequently, the application is rejected. 15. Mr. Surana submits that he may be allowed to file writ petition. P.C. cannot be invoked to give a fresh start to these controversies and in any case looking to the nature and conduct of the petitioner he hardly deserves any sympathy for exercising inherent powers. 14. Consequently, the application is rejected. 15. Mr. Surana submits that he may be allowed to file writ petition. No permission is required from this court, because whatever remedy is available to him in any forum, a litigant can always avail of it under the law subject to all exceptions.Application rejected. *******