Judgment MILAP CHANDRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 397, Cr. P. C. , 1973 against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No 1, Hanumangarh dated August 19, 1978, by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed his conviction under Section 8, Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travellers) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus: ( 2 ) THE accused-petitioner was a conductor in Bus No. RRM 6758 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. On August 19, 1978, it was going from Hanumangarh to Rawatsar. It was checked by the. checking party of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The checking party detected that the accused-petitioner has again issued the used tickets to two passengers after charging fare from them. The same day, a complaint under section 8 of the Act was presented before the Roadways Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The accused-petitioner pleaded guilty and, accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. Appeal No. 189/78 was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hannmangarh by the accused-petitioner. After hearing the parties, it was dismissed by him on April 3, 1981 by his judgment under revision. ( 3 ) AT the out-set, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that the facts of this case are similar to the facts of the reported case Jagmalaram v. State of Rajasthan, and for the reasons mentioned in it, the accused petitioner is entitled for acquittal. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed that the facts of this case are similar to the facts of the said reported case. ( 5 ) ARGUMENTS have been heard and the record has been perused. It is clear that the trial of the accused, petitioner was held immediately after the checking at the same place, i. e. , in the village Kola situated on Hanumangarh-Rawatsar route. It is also not in dispute that the accused was not provided with a copy of the complaint and he was not provided legal aid as required under section 304, Cr. It is also not in dispute that the accused was not provided with a copy of the complaint and he was not provided legal aid as required under section 304, Cr. P. C. The facts of this case are almost similar to the facts of the said reported case Jagmalaram v. State of Rajasthan. In Criminal Revision No. 291/80, R. S. R. T. C, Jodhpur v. Sardar Singh, the learned counsel for the Corporation Sri R. N. Munshi. Advocate, disclosed that the Special Leave Petition was filed before the Honble Supreme Court against this reported judgment and it was not granted. ( 6 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accusedpetitioner Omprakash are set aside. Fine, if realised will be refunded to the accused-petitioner.