M.C. JAIN, J.—The petitioner was found guilty of the offence u/sec. 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel) Act, 1955 by the Judicial Magistrate (Roadways) Hanumangarh by his order dated 28.7.78. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to undergo seven days simple imprisonment. On appeal the conviction and sentence of the petitioner were maintained by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganganagar by his order dated 24th July, 1979. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no accusation against the petitioner that he had accepted the fare from the six passengers which is an essential ingredient of the offence u/sec. 8 of the Act, 1955. In the absence of this ingredient no offence u/sec. 8 is made out, and no conviction can be recorded on the basis of the alleged confession by the petitioner. 3. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no such ingredient of the offence u/sec. 8 that the conductor should have accepted the fare and thereafter he should fail to supply the ticket. Section 3 and 8 of the Act run as under:- "3. Supply of tickets on payment of fares-Every person desirous of travelling in a motor vehicle shall, upon payment of the 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 duties 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." 4. It may be stated that the duty to make payment is of the traveller or the passenger and on demand of ticket being make a payment of fare, the duty of conductor arises to supply him the proper ticket. It may be stated that the duty to make payment is of the traveller or the passenger and on demand of ticket being make a payment of fare, the duty of conductor arises to supply him the proper ticket. The accusation against the petitioner was that he negligently and wilfully did not issue the tickets to the six passengers and he confessed it. It is not his case that no tickets were demanded by the passengers and/or they were not prepared to make payment of fare. The petition clearly admitted that he did not issue the tickets to the six passengers and he confessed his guilt. Looking to the accusation, this implies that the passengers were prepared to make payment and despite that the tickets were not supplied by the petitioner. The confession is clear and categorical. Thus, it is established that there was a breach of the duty on the part of the petitioner to supply the tickets to the six passengers and there is no such ingredient of Sec. 8 of the Act, as has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. No other point is pressed before me. 6. In the result, this revision petition has no force, so, it is hereby dismissed.