Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant criminal appeal impugns the judgment dated April 27, 1993 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Ajmer whereby the accused respondent (for short the accused) was acquitted from the charge under, section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Ticket Less Travel) Act, 197S (for short the Act). (2). Brief resume of the facts is that a complaint was filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short RSRTC) against the accused under Section 8 of the Act in the trial court with the allegations that on April 8. 1983 when Inspecting - party. checked Bus No. RRM 3155 and six passengers were found without tickets. On being enquired it was. known that the passengers had paid the fair but the accused did not issue them the tickets. The accused was summoned and charge under Section 8 of the Act was framed against him. The accused did not accept the guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as threewitnesses. Thereafter statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing the arguments the learned trial court acquitted the accused. (3). Mr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a scathing criticism of the impugned judgment. It was canvassed by the learned counsel that statements of the prosecution witnesses were not properly considered. The findings arrived at by the learned trial court are based on speculative conjectures. Inspite of the clear admission of the accused that bus was checked by the Flying Squad, he was acquitted. It was also contended that the Act was enacted to provide for prevention of ticketless travel and the trial court did not take into account that the accused by his conduct, put the Government to loss. Reliance was placed on Dharam Das vs. State of U.P. (1), Ram Prasad vs. The State of U.P. (2), Khem Karan vs. State of U.P. (3) and Shivaji vs. State of Maharashtra (4). (4). On the other hand, Mr. Resham Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the accused supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel urged that no independent witness was produced by the prosecution. If the passengers were travelling without tickets, they were guilty under Section 6 of the Act but no explanation was placed on record by the prosecution as to why they were not pro- secuted. Resham Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the accused supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel urged that no independent witness was produced by the prosecution. If the passengers were travelling without tickets, they were guilty under Section 6 of the Act but no explanation was placed on record by the prosecution as to why they were not pro- secuted. The case of the prosecution is also doubtful on the ground that the original tickets which were allegedly issued to the passengers are on record In the trial court"s file. The statement of the accused under section 313 Cr P.C. does not amount to confession. The accused categorically stated that though bus was checked but allegations against him are false. Reliance was placed on Jagroop vs. Rex (5), Bhugdomal vs. State of Gujrat (6), Jaddoo Singh vs. Smt. Malti Devi (7), Nannhu Goirya vs. State (8), Mst. Viram Wali vs. State (9) Ram Narain vs. State (10), Kishore Chand vs. State of H.P. (11), Kuntilal vs. State (12), Shri Bux Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (13) and Smt. Lichhma Devi vs. State of Raj. (14). (5). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and care- fully scrutinised the record. (6). Section 3 of the Act provides that every person desirous of travelling in a motor vehicle shall, upon payment of his fare, be supplied by the conductor for a ticket containing such particulars as may be prescribed. (7). If a person travels without proper pass or ticket, shall be punished under Section 6 of the Act to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month or with fine to the extent of Rs. 250/- or with both. (8). In order to prove the guilt of the conductor, under Section 8 of the Act, the prosecution has to prove that he negligently or willfully omitted to supply proper tickets to the passengers. (9). Admittedly, no passenger was produced by the prosecution. PW.1 Heera Lal, PW.2 Badrilal, and PW.3 Radha Mohan deposed that six passengers were found travelling without tickets. On being inquired they told that they had paid fare to the accused but did not issue them the tickets. Thereafter the tickets were issued to all those six passengers, which are Ex.1 to Ex.6. PW.3 Radha Mohan recorded the statements of the witnesses. The said statements were exhibited as Ex.P/7 to Ex. P/10. On being inquired they told that they had paid fare to the accused but did not issue them the tickets. Thereafter the tickets were issued to all those six passengers, which are Ex.1 to Ex.6. PW.3 Radha Mohan recorded the statements of the witnesses. The said statements were exhibited as Ex.P/7 to Ex. P/10. So far as the deposition of the prosecution witnesses that the passengers told them that they had paid fare to the conduct but he did not issue tickets to them, is hearsay and it is not admissible. The passengers ought to have been produced by the prosecution to prove this fact that they had paid fare to the conductors but the conductor did not issue them tickets. It is difficult to believe that if the tickets were issued to the passengers. It was so then how the said tickets formed the part of the record. statements of the witnesses recorded by PW.3 Radha Mohan and exhibited as P/7 to P/10. cannot be considered as no opportunity of cross examination was provided to the accused. These witnesses ought to have been produced as witnesses before the learned trial court. (10). As already stated the prosecution has to prove that the accused negligently or willfully omitted to supply proper tickets to the passengers for bringing home the guilty of the accused under Section 8 of the Act. It is difficult to believe that if the officials of the RSRTC subsequently issued tickets to the alleged 8 passengers then how the said tickets formed the part of the record. Learned counsel Shri P.C. Jain attempted to convince me by making submission that it is the practice of the RSRTC to take back the tickets issued to the passengers. But I am unable to pursuance myself to agree with this submission. (11). So far as another argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the accused ought to have been convicted on the basis of his admission. It may be said that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused only admitted that his bus was inspected and checked but the evidence adduced against him, the accused deposed that it was false. So I am unable to agree with this argument also. Now I proceed to discuss the authorities cited by Mr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. (12). So I am unable to agree with this argument also. Now I proceed to discuss the authorities cited by Mr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. (12). In Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus: ``Our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping to punish marginal innocents. (13). In Dharam Dass and Ors. vs. State of U.P. (supra), it was indicated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court thus: ``It is the courts duty to sift the evidence separating truth from falsehood, and come to the conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the persons accused of the offence. Exaggeration or falsehood on points which do not touch the core of the prosecution story are not to be given undue importance, provided, of course, there is trustworthy evidences supporting the real substance and core of the prosecution, case. After going through the judgment of the trial court, we cannot help observing that this real test was not properly kept in view by that court. (14). Discussing the effect of withholding the witnesses, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Prasad and Ors. vs. The State of U.P. (supra), observed thus: "In case enough number of witnesses have been examined with regard to actual occurrence and their evidence is reliable and suffi- cient to base the conviction of the accused thereon, the prosecution may well decide to refrain from examining the other witnesses. Likewise, if any of the witnesses is won over by the accused party and as such is likely to state the truth, the prosecution would have a valid ground for not examining him in court. The prosecution would not however be justified in not examining a witness on the ground that his evidence even though not untrue would go in favour of the accused. It is as such the duty of the prosecution as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on the record so that there may be no miscarriage of justice. It is as such the duty of the prosecution as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on the record so that there may be no miscarriage of justice. The discharge of such a duty cannot be affected by the consideration that some of the facts if brought on the record would be favourable to the accused. In case the court finds that the prosecution has not examined witnesses for reasons not tenable or not proper the court would be justified in drawing an inference adverse to the prosecution. (15). In Khem Karan & Ors. vs. The State of U.P. & Anr. (supra), it was held thus:– ``Neither mere possibilities nor remote probabilities nor more doubts which are not reasonable can, without danger to the administration of justice, be the foundation of the acquittal of an accused person if there is otherwise fairly credible testimony. If a trial courts judgment verges on the perverse, the appellate court has a duty to set the evaluation right and that is about all that has happened in this case. The High Court has given a large margin for reasonable doubt and confirmed the acquittal of a considerable number of the accused. (16). Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it may be observed that the prosecution has not explained as to why the six passengers were not made witnesses. If they were found travelling without tickets in the bus why they were not made accused under Section 6 of the Act. Why their explanation that they had paid fare to the conductor was believed by the officials of the RSRTC. If tickets were issued to them by the officials then under what circumstances the said tickets form the part of the record. I do agree that unreasonable doubt cannot be made the foundation of a guilt of an accused person, if there is otherwise fairly credible testimony but in this case. I do not find credible testimony. There are many holes in the prosecution story and Mr. P.C. Jain has unsuccessfully attempted to fill these holes. The prosecution is unable to erase the reasonable doubt arise in my mind in respect of the prosecution story. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 8 of the Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There are many holes in the prosecution story and Mr. P.C. Jain has unsuccessfully attempted to fill these holes. The prosecution is unable to erase the reasonable doubt arise in my mind in respect of the prosecution story. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 8 of the Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I see no illegality in the judgment of the learned trial court. (17). Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.