JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition against the judgment and order dated 1.12.1998 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 25/1998 whereby the learned appellate Court although affirmed and upheld the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticket less Travel) Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") but at the same time modified the sentence passed by the trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 622/1991 in the manner that benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was extended to him in case he deposits Rs. 10,000/- as prosecution expenses in the trial Court. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and sentenced for simple imprisonment for 15 days and fine of Rs. 250/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 4.5.1989 at 1.15 p.m., when a Bus belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bearing registration No. RNP-760 was checked by the checking party, the petitioner was found discharging duty as conductor in the aforesaid bus and it was found that 15 passengers were not issued tickets despite the fact that fare was paid by them to the petitioner and it was further found that the petitioner negligently and willingly did not issue tickets to eleven and half passengers and for five bicycles although those passengers were willing to pay the fare and freight for the same. On the above-said premises, complaint under the provisions of the Act was submitted against the petitioner before the trial Court and in order to prove the charge, non-petitioner-Corporation produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the allegation and evidence produced by the non-petitioner although he admitted that he was discharging his duty as conductor in the aforesaid bus at the relevant date, time and place. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the aforesaid manner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. but without success although as already stated benefit of probation was extended by the learned appellate Court. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the aforesaid manner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. but without success although as already stated benefit of probation was extended by the learned appellate Court. Still dissatisfied, the accused-petitioner is before this Court by way of this criminal revision petition. 2. Assailing the conviction of the petitioner, learned counsel for him has raised the following grounds:-- (i) The trial in the present case commenced on the basis of a complaint filed by the non-petitioner-Corporation for the offence under Section 8 of the Act but during trial the complaint was neither proved nor exhibited and in absence thereof entire trial including conviction and sentence is illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted on that account alone. It is a legal requirement that in a complaint case, the complaint on the basis of which the criminal proceedings have initiated, is also proved in accordance with law but in the present case the same has not been done and therefore, the entire proceedings are initiated. (ii) For an offence punishable under me provisions of the Act, complaint can be filed by the Corporation or by any authorised officer to which the Corporation delegates its power to file complaint but in me present case, mere is no evidence available on record indicating that the Corporation authorised P.W. 3-Shri Chiranjilal to file complaint and in absence thereof, me trial and the conviction and sentence passed thereupon is illegal and without jurisdiction P.W. 3-Shri Chiranjilal even in his statement made before the Court has not stated that authority was given by the Corporation to him to file the complaint. (iii) To prove the charge levelled against the petitioner, apart from other, the non-petitioner-Corporation has also produced original tickets issued by the checking-party to the passengers to whom the petitioner allegedly did not issue tickets but it has not been explained when tickets were issued to the respective passengers in what circumstances they were procured from them and produced before the Court. Non-explanation of the aforesaid fact is clear indication of the fact mat no passenger was travelling in me aforesaid vehicle without ticket and the checking-party to falsely involve the petitioner is the aforesaid offence, at its own issued tickets and produced the same to substantiate the allegation made against the petitioner. (iv) The evidence available on record indicates that the Presiding Officer of the trial Court was in fact heading the checking-party and he was very much present at the time when the vehicle was checked and, therefore, the trial conducted by the same Presiding Officer cannot be said to be a fair trial and as a result of such trial, petitioner could not be convicted and sentenced. (v) It was further contended that although, none of the above grounds was raised in the trial Court as well as before the appellate Court on behalf of the petitioner but he cannot be deprived of to raise the same in this petition for the first time as accused has a right to defend himself even on a ground which was not previously raised. In support of his submissions learned counsel raised upon various rulings. 3. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. My finding on each of the grounds raised by the petitioner with reasons is as below:-- (i) Although, in the present case, the trial commenced on the basis of a complaint filed on behalf of the non-petitioner-Corporation and during trial the same was not exhibited but only by that reason it cannot be said that the entire trial became illegal and without jurisdiction and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court stood vitiated because there is no legal requirement that the complaint is to be exhibited during trial and in absence thereof the entire proceedings become illegal and without jurisdiction. According to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code of Criminal Procedure, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. According to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code of Criminal Procedure, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. It is thus, clear that a "complaint" is like a first information report lodged in a police station and the purpose of the same is to take action by the concerned Magistrate under the Code and it must contain allegation either orally or in writing that some person has committed an offence. I am of the view that like first information report, complaint also is not a substantive or primary piece of evidence and at the most it can be used only as a previous statement of its maker to corroborate or contradict him under Section 157 and 145 of the Evidence Act. A person cannot be convicted only on the basis of facts stated or allegation made in it. In a case if complaint is not exhibited, at the most it cannot be used for the corroboration of the evidence produced during trial but mere non-exhibition of the same cannot render the whole trial vitiated or without jurisdiction. In the present case also, at the most it can be held that the complaint cannot be used to corroborate the evidence produced by the complainant during trial. From the record it does not appear that trial Court or the appellate Court has used the complaint to hold the petitioner guilty for the charge levelled against him despite the fact that the same was not exhibited/proved during trial. None of the decisions relied by the petitioner has laid down that non-exhibition of complaint in such a case would result in acquittal of the accused. (ii) There is no provision in the Act requiring that for an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act the complaint can be filed either by me Corporation or by any authorised officer to whom the Corporation has delegated its power to file it. It is well settled that any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may complain even though he is not personally injured or affected by the offence but where a special or local law or any other legal provision specifies the person by whom prosecution under those law should be instituted. It is well settled that any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may complain even though he is not personally injured or affected by the offence but where a special or local law or any other legal provision specifies the person by whom prosecution under those law should be instituted. It is only such person that can make a complaint and not others but the Act despite being a special/local law no where specified the person by whom only prosecution under the provisions of the Act can be initiated. I am of the view that in absence of such specific provision, Magistrate can take cognizance for an offence under the provisions of the Act on a complaint made by any person even if he has not been authorised by the Corporation Sections 195 to 199 of Cr.P.C. provide the specified persons who only can make complaint for offence mentioned in those provisions. Similarly, many special/local law also specify the person by whom the prosecution can be initiated for the offences punishable under those law. Apart from that in the present case, the complaint has been filed by P.W.-3 Shri Chiranjilal who, at the relevant time, was posted as Traffic Inspector and he was also member of the checking-party and thus having personal knowledge of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. Apart from that, filing of complaint by an in-competent person was not objected by the petitioner at the earliest opportunity and in absence thereof he cannot be allowed to take such an objection at this belated stage as that defect could have been cured by the Corporation at the initial stage itself if the same would have been raised at the proper stage. Section 14 of the Act, although provides for delegation of its powers and the manner in which it is to be exercised but it no where provides that complaint can be filed by the Corporation itself or any person authorised by it. Section 14 of the Act, although provides for delegation of its powers and the manner in which it is to be exercised but it no where provides that complaint can be filed by the Corporation itself or any person authorised by it. (iii) The prosecution case is that when on the aforesaid date, time and place the above mentioned vehicle was checked, it was found that the petitioner did not issue tickets to 15 passengers despite the fact that fare was paid by them to the petitioner and it was further found that the petitioner did not issue tickets to other eleven and half passengers and for five bicycles although those passengers were willing to pay the fare and freight for the same. Further case of the prosecution is that during checking fare and freight for the aforesaid passengers and bicycles was got paid to the petitioner and tickets for the passengers and bicycles were issued at the spot from the ticket-book of the petitioner. It is true that all the tickets so issued at the spot during checking has been produced during trial as Ex. P1 to Ex. P33 but only by that reason it cannot be said that no passenger was travelling in the aforesaid vehicle without obtaining ticket for himself for the bicycle which he was carrying with him and the checking party to falsely involve the petitioner for the aforesaid offence at his own issued tickets and produced the same to substantiate the charge made against the petitioners as explanation was not sought from any of the prosecution witnesses for production of aforesaid tickets during trial. It is true that if a ticket is issued to a passenger either by the conductor or by the checking party it cannot be taken back from him and in a case in which checking of a vehicle is made and on some passengers being found travelling without ticket, the checking party has issued tickets to them and for the purpose of prosecution the same are taken back from the passengers, a separate seizure memo is expected to be prepared but if in a case such course is not adopted by the checking party even then without seeking explanation from the members of the checking party during trial, the accused cannot subsequently complain. In the present case, during examination-in-chief, the tickets issued by the checking party were exhibited as Ex. In the present case, during examination-in-chief, the tickets issued by the checking party were exhibited as Ex. P 1 to Ex. P33 but during cross examination explanation was not sought on behalf of the petitioner in what circumstances the aforesaid tickets which were issued to the passengers were taken back from them and produced in the Court. (iv) It is true that P.W. 3 Shri Chiranjilal in his cross examination has admitted that the Magistrate was also present with them at the time of checking but he has further stated that the Magistrate was sitting in the Jeep. That means the Magistrate did not actively and personally participated in the checking process. No further cross examination was conducted in this regard. It is not me case of the petitioner that the same Magistrate was Presiding over the trial court when the judgment and order dated 23.5.1997 was passed. It is relevant to note that me aforesaid incident is of 4.5.1989 whereas the judgment was passed on 23.5.1997 i.e. after lapse of 8 years and me same has been rendered not by the Judicial Magistrate, Roadways, Ajmer but Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer as the case was subsequently transferred to it. If for the sake of arguments it is admitted mat the concerned Magistrate was somehow involved in the checking of the aforesaid vehicle but as me trial was not conducted by him and the judgment and order was also not passed by him it cannot be said that prejudice has been caused to me petitioner. Section 479 of Cr.P.C. provides that no Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from his court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself. The explanation further provides that a Judge or Magistrate shall not be deemed to be a party to, or personally interested in, any case by reason only that he is concerned therein in a public capacity, or by reason only mat he has viewed the place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed or any other place in which any other transaction material to the case is alleged to have occurred and made an inquiry in connection with the case. In the present case, at the most it can be said that the concerned Magistrate presiding over the then Roadways Court was present at the place of commission of aforesaid offence in a public capacity but only by mat reason it cannot be said that he was party to or personally interested in the present case and therefore, was incompetent to try the same. 5. The net result of all this discussion is that none of the grounds raised on behalf of the accused-petitioner is legally tenable so as to set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court as upheld and modified by the appellant Court. Consequently, the criminal revision petition is dismissed and me judgment and order dated 1.12.1998 passed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 25/98 is upheld and affirmed.Revision dismissed. *******