# Rajendra Kumar v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 210
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2868 of 1986
- **Bench:** Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-54320
- **Pages:** 15

## Text

_Characters 0–39,965 of 49,328. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39965 for what follows._

210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 3 ILRA 210
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD-11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2868 of 1986

Rajendra Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of judgment and order convicting the Appellant for offence under Sections 332 and
333 IPC.

Headnotes
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 ; The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Rules, 1972; Indian Penal Code-Admitted fact not taken into consideration by the trial court- that the
three witnesses of fact have not produced any authority (per Rule 23) that they were authorized to stop and
check the roadways UPSRTC Bus No.UST5238- wherein the accused was the conductor.- trial court has
presumed that the informants are the public servants and therefore it is obvious that they were discharging
their duties- entire evidence on this point is presumptive in nature- assuming the informants were discharging
their duties- the Rule of 1972 provides the phrase 'authorized employee' in Rules 23 and 24-the prosecution
has failed to prove that the public servants, the three traffic inspectors, were discharging their official duty as
such- the accused-appellant cannot be held responsible for causing the injuries on the person of Nathu Ram
and Budhi Mal-the medical and ocular testimonies are inconsistent in nature- the appellant is held not guilty
for offence -liable to be acquitted. Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. D. Chattaiah and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 1 SCC 128
2. Nathi Lal Vs. State of U.P., 1990 Supp SCC 145
3. Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 2 SCC 666

List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950
3. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Rules, 1972

List of Keywords
Public servants; presumptive in nature; grievous hurt to a public servant to deter him from discharging his
duty.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anurag Upadhyay, G.S Saxena, Ravinath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.)
3 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
211

1. Heard Sri Ravinath Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Chandra Badan,
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The accused-appellant Rajendra Kumar 'Conductor of UPSRTC Bus' (Uttar Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation) was held guilty by the learned trial Judge for offences under Sections
333 and 332 IPC of voluntary causing grievous hurt to Nathu Ram, Traffic Inspector and causing of
hurt to Traffic Inspectors Attar Singh and Budhi Mal, to deter them in discharge of their duties,
while conducting inspection. He was consequently, sentenced to two and three years rigorous
imprisonment for offences under Sections 332 and 333 IPC, respectively. It is directed that both the
sentences to run concurrently. This judgment was passed in Sessions Trial No.142 of 1984 (State
Vs. Rajendra Kumar) for offence under Sections 332 and 333 IPC, arose out of Case Crime No.371
of 1981 reported at Police Station Roorkee, District Saharanpur.

3. The prosecution case evolved from the F.I.R. dated 06.08.1981 at 18:30 hours, Police
Station Roorkee, the then District Saharanpur, registered by three informants, namely, Attar Singh,
Nathu Ram and Budhi Mal, the Traffic Inspectors Grade-II of U.P. Roadways lodged against the
appellant, who is conductor of Roadways Bus No.UST5238, for the offence under Sections 332,
333, 353, 426, 506 IPC with the allegation that about 16:00 hours, a Bus No.UST5238 of
Saharanpur Depot, plying from Saharanpur to Haridwar was made to stop in the route. The three
traffic inspectors got on the bus and asked the conductor Rajendra Kumar to show way-bill, who
has handed it with objection. The bus was plying towards Roorkee. While the team was counting
the heads, the conductor, who was not in uniform has started using abusive language with indecent
behaviour and instigated the passengers against the department and its officers. The bus then
reached Ram Nagar Camp, Roorkee, where Nathu Ram has advised the conductor to be obedient to
the department and its officers, on which he gave two fist blows on his face, when Attar Singh
intervened, the conductor snatched his diary and torn it apart. Nathu Ram suffered injuries on his
face and his two upper teeth were broken, he also fell down and suffered knee injury. Attar Singh
and Nathu Ram came to the office of Station Incharge Roorkee Bus Station. Budhi Mal was pulled
inside the bus and was asked to delete the report on way-bill or to face consequences. Attar Singh
and Nathu Ram had informed the Station Incharge about the incident. They waited for the bus for
half an hour, thereafter, Budhi Mal came to Roorkee. He has informed that he was threatened and
pressurized to delete the report on way-bill. His shirt, under shirt and pant were torn and was made
to alight from the bus at Bahedi toll barrier, who was also threatened not to report the matter.

4. The chik F.I.R. was registered by P.W.-6 Hitlar Singh on 06.08.1981 at 18:30 hours for the
incident of 06.08.1981 occurred at 16:00 hours. The injured Nathu Ram and Budhi Mal were taken
to Civil Hospital Roorkee by CP 130 Kuda Singh. The medico legal examination has been
conducted by P.W.-4 Dr. Vipin Kumar Premi. The medico legal examination of Nathu Ram,
carried out on 06.08.1981 at 7:35 p.m. reveals that he suffered three injuries. "(1) Abrasion 0.5 cm
x 0.2 cm on inner aspect of upper lip; (2) upper two middle incisor teeth missing with healthy
tooth sockets with bleeding from them. Other teeth are normal; (3) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm
on front of right knee." It is reported that injury no.2 is grievous, while injury nos.1 and 3 are
simple. All injuries are caused by blunt object and friction. Duratio n is fresh. The medico
legal examination report of Budhi Mal reveals that he was examined on 06.08.1981 at 7:45 p.m.
with the reported injury "contusion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right shoulder and complaining of pain in
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
chest". It is observed that injury is simple and caused by blunt object. Duration is fresh. Both the
injury reports have been exhibited as Exhibit Ka-3 and Ka-4, respectively. It is also mentioned in
the injury report that police case, F.I.R. number not mentioned.

5. The Investigating Officer, P.W.-5 S.I. Mahabir Singh, during investigation, has recorded the
statements of five witnesses, namely, Attar Singh, Nathu Ram, Budhi Mal, Hitlar Singh, Dr. V.K.
Premi and submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant stating therein that the offence
under Sections 332, 333, 353, 426 and 506 IPC is established against the accused, from the material
collected during investigation.

6. On 23.04.1985, charge has been framed against the accused-appellant for offence under
Sections 333, 332 IPC and not under Sections 353, 426 and 506 IPC.

7. The accused has denied the charge and pleaded not guilty, hence, claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution has produced all the six witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Attar Singh, P.W.-2
Nathu Ram and P.W.-3 Budhi Mal, P.W.-4 Dr. Vipin Kumar Premi, P.W.-5 S.I. Mahabir Singh and
P.W.-6 Hitlar Singh.

9. The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC stated that the three traffic
inspectors have falsely implicated the accused. The Traffic Inspectors have wrongly asked for the
ticket of four and a half year old child, who was exempted. The traffic inspectors have beaten him,
which infuriated the passengers. The passengers then, caught Budhi Mal to produce him before
ARM Haridwar, on which Budhi Mal has given an apology letter on his own.

10. The accused-appellant has produced three defence witnesses. Dr. S.C. Singhal as D.W.-1,
who has examined the injury on the person of accused-appellant; Mohd. Umar Head constable as
D.W.-2, the scribe of F.I.R., which he has lodged against Attar Singh, Nathu Ram and Budhi Mal,
the subject matter of cross case in Sessions Trial No.162 of 1984 (State Vs. Nathu Ram and others);
and B.D. Tyagi, D.W-3 a passenger of the bus, who was traveling on the date, when the said
checking has been conducted.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is 77 years of age. He was
the conductor of the bus, which was plying from Saharanpur to Haridwar and falsely implicated by
the informants, traffic inspectors. He submits that some of the passengers were infuriated due to the
conduct of traffic inspectors. When the bus stopped at Ram Nagar Camp, Traffic Inspectors Attar
Singh and Nathu Ram alighted from the bus, whereas, the passengers have stopped Budhi Mal from
alighting the bus. Budhi Mal was to be produced before ARM Haridwar and he had wisely
recorded the apology letter on his own, so that he may escape from encountering ARM Haridwar.
Further submits that the accused-appellant has not beaten the traffic inspectors, but Nathu Ram
might have suffered injuries somewhere else after alighting from bus. He further submits that the
statements of witnesses of fact are inconsistent in respect to their stopping and boarding the bus.
Further submits that the Traffic Inspectors have not disclosed that they were authorized for
checking on the route of Saharanpur to Haridwar. The prosecution has not produced any document
to substantiate that the informants left the office of Saharanpur Bus Depot for the purpose of
3 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
213
checking. He further submits that the appellant has also lodged the F.I.R. against the accused and
there was a cross case, which has not been decided by the trial court. Further submits that the trial
Judge has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded conviction. Further submits
that the three witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their testimonies
are to be looked into more cautiously. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal is liable to be
allowed and accused shall be acquitted of the charge.

12. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the trial court has rightly appreciated
the evidence on record. The trial court has made specific mention in the judgment that why
independent witnesses have not been produced, including the driver. Further submits that the three
traffic inspectors had checked the bus and found anomalies in the way-bill, on which, the accusedappellant has deterred the traffic inspectors in doing their duties. Further submits that the F.I.R.
lodged by the accused-appellant against the traffic inspectors is in counter blast, which has rightly
been taken into consideration by the trial court in its judgment. The trial court has also rightly dealt
with the defence witnesses. It is therefore, stated that the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be
dismissed.

13. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and
perused the record.

14. The point of concern and determination is whether the trial court has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record and reached to the right conclusion that the accused has
voluntarily caused hurt to Attar Singh and Budhi Mal and grievous hurt to Nathu Ram, who
are the public servants, when they were discharging their duty, as such.

15. To establish the offence of voluntary causing hurt and grievous hurt to deter a public
servant from performing his duty, which is the point of concern in this case, the provision of
Sections 332, 333 IPC is required to be reiterated:-

"332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.-Whoever
voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such
public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from
discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be
done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both.

333. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.-
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of
his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public
servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or
attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine. "
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. The prosecution, to establish guilt of the accused under these sections was required to
proof following facts:-

(I) The accused has voluntarily caused hurt or grievous hurt;

(II) That the persons so hurt or grievously hurt was a public servant;

(III) That such public servant was then discharging his duty, as such.

17. The admitted fact in the entire case is that the informant and the accused both are public
servants, in view of Section 21, sub-Section twelfth (b) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, as both the
parties drew their pay from the corporation established by the State Act, UPSRTC. Now, the point
of concern is voluntarily causing of hurt and grievous hurt by the accused upon the informants
while they were discharging their duties, as such.

18. To consider the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court, it is expedient to reiterate
the statements of three witnesses, namely, Attar Singh, Nathu Ram and Budhi Mal, who were
recorded as Prosecution Witnesses 1 to 3.

19. P.W.-1 Attar Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 06.08.1981, he was
posted as Traffic Inspector and his duty was to check the buses of U.P. Roadways of Saharanpur to
Haridwar route. The accused was the conductor of Bus No.UST5238. Nathu Ram and Budhi Mal
were also traffic inspectors and conducted inspection of the bus of accused, which was stopped by
them at Kishanpur for checking. They got on the bus and asked for the way-bill from the conductor,
who was not in uniform. Six passengers boarded the bus from Baghwanpur. These entries were not
available on way-bill. On query, the conductor started entering the way-bill, by that time the bus
reached Ram Nagar, Roorkee. The accused started hurling abuses and deter them to do the official
work. Nathu Ram has made endorsement in the way-bill. The appellant has read out the
endorsement and asked Nathu Ram whether he wants to take his service and gave two fist blows on
the face of Nathu Ram due to which, his two teeth got broken, Nathu Ram fell in the bus and
suffered knee injury. He ran to save Nathu Ram on which, accused has snatched his diary and torn
it a part. He and Nathu Ram had alighted from the bus, but Budhi Mal was pulled back in the bus.
He and Nathu Ram went to Station Incharge where they have intimated the incident to Station
Incharge, after half an hour, Budhi Mal had also returned. He has written the written information
and got it forwarded by the Senior Depot Incharge Roorkee, for getting the F.I.R. registered. He
further submits that the departmental inquiry was initiated against the accused, who was dismissed
from service and his departmental appeal was also dismissed by RM and DGM. During his crossexamination, he has given the following replies:-

(a) Inspection note does not mention that six passengers were not mentioned in way-bill. It
also does not mentioned that accused was not in uniform.

(b) Inspection note mentioned that "checked 42 passengers. The conductor misbehaved and
interfered in checking."
3 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
215

(c) This inspection note was later on deleted by Budhi Mal.

(d) The inspection note also does not reveal that the entry of six passengers has been made by
the conductor in his presence.

(e) He has denied the suggestion that the entry of 42 passengers was made by the accused and
no entry was entered by the accused in his presence.

(f) The torn up diary was not on record, because they tried to save their life.

(g) His duty was on the route, whereas, the other two traffic inspectors were on surprise visit
and met this witness due to co-incidence.

(h) Kishanpur and Bhagwanpur is at a distance of 5 km. They have boarded the bus at
Bhagwanpur, after the petrol pump.

(i) The accused did not reach the Roorkee bus stand, but directly went to Haridwar via
Roorkee Cantt.

(j) He submits that the self booking system was applicable for buses, but despite that the buses
used to enter the bus stand and their entry is made at the bus stand. He denied the suggestion that
no entry is made at the bus stand regarding the buses with self booking system.

(k) According to way-bill, 18 passengers have alighted at Roorkee bus stand and some of the
passengers have alighted at Ram Nagar Camp Bus station, in his presence. He further stated that
according to way-bill, 27 passengers have boarded the bus from Roorkee bus stand. He has refuted
the suggestion that due to the cross case, he has lodged a false and frivolous complaint.

(l) He along with the other traffic inspectors alighted from the back door of the bus.

20. Nathu Ram in his statement as P.W.-2, has stated that on 06.08.1981, he was posted as
traffic inspector in the U.P. Roadways. Attar Singh and Budhi Mal were also traffic inspectors. All
the three had boarded the bus at 4:00 p.m. for checking at village Kishanpur and Bhagwanpur is
situated at a distance of 7 km towards Roorkee. After boarding the bus, all the three had asked for
way-bill. Six passengers boarded the bus at Bhagwanpur. The accused was not in the uniform.
When they have asked for way-bill, the accused started hurling abuses. He has made entry in the
way-bill. He has admitted his signatures on the written information. When he was alighting the bus,
the accused has seen the remark on the way-bill and asked to delete the same. When he stated not
to delete the remark, the accused gave him two fist blows on his face, due to which, he lost his two
teeth and fell. He then suffered injury on his knees. Attar Singh when tried to intervene and save
Nathu Ram, the accused had snatched his diary, torn it apart and threw it inside the bus. He and
Attar Singh alighted from the bus, whereas, Budhi Mal was pulled inside, they came to the
roadways bus station and waited for Budhi Mal. After half an hour, Budhi Mal came to the bus
station. Budhi Mal has intimated him that on the fear of his life, he has deleted the remark on the
way-bill and also gave an apology letter. During his cross-examination, he has submitted as below:-
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) He along with the other traffic inspectors boarded the bus at Kishanpur and at 10 to 12
minutes, the bus reached Ram Nagar Camp. After checking, he gave the remark on the way-bill. He
has alighted from the front door of the bus, where the accused has caught hold of him and started
fighting and fell on the ground of the bus. He also suffered knee injuries.

(b) He further submits that Budhi Mal and Attar Singh had alighted from the back door of the
bus and he from the front door.

(c) Whatever incident happened with Budhi Mal, has not happened in his presence. He has not
made any remark regarding the entry of six passengers, in the way-bill.

(d) The diary of Attar Singh, which was snatched by the accused, was torn and thrown away.

(e) He refuted the suggestion of any altercation with the accused on the point of issuance of
ticket to a child.

(f) He refuted that to save themselves from the cross-case, a false case has been lodged by
them.

21. Budhi Mal (P.W.-3) has stated that on 06.08.1981, he was on the post of Traffic Inspector
and checking the U.P. Roadways Bus No.UST5238. Nathu Ram and Attar Singh, the Traffic
Inspectors were with him. All the three traffic inspectors have stopped the bus at Kishanpur for its
checking and boarded the bus. The conductor of this bus was Rajendra Kumar, the accused. They
have asked the accused for way-bill to check. He avoided to hand it over to them and in their
presence he has made entry of six passengers in the way-bill, who boarded the bus from
Bhagwanpur. Bhagwanpur is situated at a distance of 6 to 7 kms from Kishanpur. He submits that
as per the rules, the entry of passengers would have been carried out at Bhagwanpur. The accused
has started using abusive language and also instigated the passengers against them. The accused
was also not in uniform. The bus reached Ram Nagar, Roorkee bus stop. In the way, the traffic
inspector Nathu Ram has made his remark on the way-bill. The accused has asked Nathu Ram to
delete the entry and asked him whether he wants to take his service. Nathu Ram has refused to
delete the entry, on which, the accused Rajendra has given two fist blows on the face of Nathu
Ram, which resulted in loosing of his two teeth and he fell down. All the three traffic inspectors
have alighted from the bus, but accused and his two friends have pulled him inside the bus. He was
beaten. Nathu Ram and Attar Singh went away on Rickshaw and the bus moved. He has asked to
take the bus to the bus stand, but the bus was not taken to the bus stand and stopped at a distance,
where the passengers of Roorkee were alighted and other passengers had boarded. Bus then
reached Bahedi Gate. The accused has torn his shirt, under shirt and pant and pressurized him to
delete the entry and forcefully asked him to write an apology letter and thereafter, he has alighted
from the bus. He has taken another bus and returned to the Roadways Bus Stand and informed the
Station Incharge. He also found Attar Singh and Nathu Ram at the bus stand. The report is written
by Attar Singh, which carries his signatures. The same forwarded by the Station Incharge, given at
the police station. Lastly, submits that for checking he has boarded the bus at 4:00 p.m. During his
cross-examination, he has given following replies:-
3 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
217

(a) He was confronted on the points that what he has stated to have informed the Investigating
Officer is not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, but found place in his
examination-in-chief. As the accused has made an entry of six passengers, who have boarded the
bus at Bhagwanpur in his presence; accused has asked Nathu Ram to delete the entry and that he
wants to take his service; the accused has pulled him with the help of his two friends inside the bus;
and has asked to take the bus to bus stand. All these statements are not recorded in Section 161
CrPC.

(b) The flying squad for surprise checking is not at Saharanpur. He and Nathu Ram were
authorized to do the surprise checking. He refuted the suggestion that there is no such authorization
of surprise checking.

(c) The distance between Kishanpur to Ram Nagar Camp is 4 to 5 km and from Ram Nagar
Camp to Roorkee Roadways Bus Stand is 2 km.

(d) It is the duty of conductor to deposit, the items left in the bus, at the Depot and a receipt is
issued for that. He was shown Parcha 1 and 2. He has recognized the signature of Station Incharge
Mr. Chaudhari in Parcha No.1, but could not recognize the signature in Parcha No.2.

(e) At Haridwar, there is office of Assistant Regional Manager.

(f) He has counted the passenger of the bus. They have made entries after counting and has not
talked to the accused or the passengers.

(g) They have talked to the accused only after entry of six persons in the way-bill and the
altercation between them and accused was after checking.

(h) The booking can be done by the conductor in the bus.

(i) In the way, the accused and his friends had beaten him and also threatened to kill him.
Further stated that at the bus stand, there are shops and taxi stand.

(j) Further stated that at toll barrier, there were five to six persons employed and he has
alighted from the bus at toll barrier.

(k) He admitted that the apology letter was written by him in his handwriting. Some
passengers have also made signatures on it, which is in favour of the accused.

(l) He refuted the suggestion that he is stating incorrect, to save him from cross-case. He has
further refuted the suggestion that he has written the apology letter, because the passengers were
adamant to produce him before ARM, Haridwar and therefore, he has prepared the apology letter,
on which, he was released.

22. The informants are the public servant, being traffic inspectors of UPSRTC. The accused is
also a public servant, who is the conductor of UPSRTC Bus. There is counter allegation levelled by
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the accused that the traffic inspectors were not acting in discharge of their duties, harassed the
passengers, which has infuriated them. It is the wrath of passengers, which forced Budhi Mal to
enter the apology letter, so that he may not be produced before ARM, Haridwar. There is nothing
on record to show, except a reference about the cross-case lodged by the accused. The three traffic
inspectors are also an interested witnesses and therefore, their testimonies are required to be closely
scrutinized, considering their boarding of Roadways Bus for the purpose of checking on
06.08.1981. It is also required to be taken into consideration, the essential requirements for the
traffic inspectors, while checking of Roadways Bus, which is a public transport and carries the
public and whether those requirements have been complied.

23. To consider the action of informant and accused in discharge of their respective duties, it
would be necessary to consider the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and the Rules,
governing the same, which were found applicable at the relevant point of time. The U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Rules, 1972, which deals with the issuance of ticket and duty of conductor.
The relevant Rules are required to be reiterated below:-

"20. Issue of ticket for journey and receipt of goods.-The conductor or any other
employee of the Corporation, authorised in this behalf, shall issue to a passenger on payment of
proper fare a ticket for the journey and on payment of proper freight a receipt for any goods, if
chargeable, carried by him.

21. Liability to obtain ticket or receipt.-No person,. not being a driver or conductor,
shall travel or carry goods in a vehicle operated by or on behalf of the Corporation unless he has
obtained a ticket for the journey or a receipt for the carriage of the goods, if chargeable as the case
may be.

22. Penalty for breach of Rule 21. -Whoever does any act in contravention of Rule 21
shall, without prejudice to any. action that may be taken against him under any law for the time
being in force, be liable, subject to the provisions of Section 46 of the Act, to the penalty provided
therein.

23. Production of ticket or receipt by a passenger.-Every passenger shall, during the
course of or immediately before or after the journey, whenever required by Magistrate or an
authorised employee, produce the ticket or receipt for the goods carried by him and shall for
contravention of this rule be liable to the penalty provided in Section 46 of the Act.

24. Liability of passenger for breach of Rule 23.-On the failure of the passenger to
produce the ticket or receipt under Rule 23, the Magistrate or the authorised employee, as the case
may be unless satisfied that such passenger has not intentionally travelled without a ticket or
carried goods without a receipt may without prejudice to any action that may be taken against such
passenger under any law for the time being in force, take action for his prosecution under Section
46 of the Act.

25. Duty of conductor and liability of breach.-(1) It shall be the duty of the conductor
of a vehicle to ensure that no passenger travels or carries goods in that vehicle in contravention of
Rule 21 and any conductor who commits a breach of this rule shall be liable to the penalty under
Section 46 of Act."

24. In the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Services Manual, the 'Traffic Inspectors' are
of clerical staff in Grade-II, Cadre, whereas, the 'conductor' is of semi skilled category. The above
3 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
219
category is created under the minimum rates of wages for various categories of employers in
employment of Transport workshop, which was notified. (vide notification No.3539/XXXVI-3-4-
(M.W.)-90, dated November 28, 1991, published in Gazette of India Extra. Dated 28.11.1991).
Though, it is of later date but taken to consideration. The concerned paragraph 11 is reiterated
underneath:-

"11. If any employer undertakes any work of employment through contracts labour
engaged under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, such
contract labour shall also be entitled to same rate of wages and Special Allowance which has been
made admissible under paragraphs (1) and (2) for employees engaged directly by the employer.

Note-If any contract labour is being engaged by any employer without obtaining the
certificate under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 such labour will be
deemed to be labour engaged by the employer directly in view of Section 9 of the aforesaid Act
read with Section 2(i) (iv) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Annexure

1. Clerical staff. (A) Highly skilled and Clerical, Grade 1- Minimum Educational
qualification High School and must have experience of five-years work in the establishment.

Traffic Superintendent, Station Superintendent, Manager, Works Incharge, Overseer,
Foreman, Head Clerk, Stenographer, Senior Accountant, Draftsman, Godown Keeper, Head
Cashier, Store Superintendent and other employees doing similar nature of work by whatever name
called.

(B) Clerical, Grade-II-Minimum Educational Qualifications High School and one who
has not completed five years in the establishment.

Accountant, Assistant Accountant, Clerk-cum-typist, Melaman, Accounts Clerk, Out
Agency Clerk, Cashier, Assistant Godown Keeper, Superintendent Receipt and Despatch,
Storekeeper, Progress Checker, Station Incharge/Master, Traffic Inspector, Head Time Keeper
and other employees doing similar nature of work by whatever name called.

2. (A) Skilled-Serviceman, Workshop Supervisor, Mechanic, Driver, Turner, Fuse
Injection Punchinan, Painter, Fitter, Latheman, Air-Conditioner, Mechanic, Mistry, Gate Sergeant,
Electrician, Tin Smith, Compounder, Supervisor. Assistant Storekeeper, Carpenter, Vulcanizer,
Upholster and other employees doing similar nature of job by whatever name called.

(B) Semi-skilled-Grinder, Boringman, Assistant Painter, Radiator, Conductor, Daftri,
Zamadar, Bundle Lifter Dafadar and other Repairer, Welder, Blacksmith, Assistant Fitter, Assistant
Mechanic, employees doing similar nature of job by whatever name called.

(C) Unskilled-Orderly, Peon, Bhisti, Waterman, Chowkidar, Mazdoor, Sweeper, Cleaner,
Hair Dresser, Cobbler, Chamber Servant, Treasury Peon, Store Mazdoor, Loader, Vehicle Washer,
Coolie, Office Boy, Petrol Pump Attendant and other employees doing similar nature of job by
whatever name called."

25. It is an admitted fact not taken into consideration by the trial court that the three witnesses
of fact, namely, Attar Singh, Nathu Ram and Budhi Mal have not produced any authority (per Rule
23, quoted above) that they were authorized to stop and check the roadways UPSRTC Bus
No.UST5238, wherein the accused was the conductor. The trial court in its judgment has presumed
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the informants are the public servants and therefore it is obvious that they were discharging
their duties. On the point of inspection of the bus, P.W.-1 Attar Singh has stated that he was the
traffic inspector for the route of Saharanpur to Haridwar. He submits that it was sheer co-incidence
that Nathu Ram and Budhi Mal were also on surprise inspection and they have boarded the bus at
same point. It is not the case that the three traffic inspectors have boarded the same bus for different
objectives to conduct the inspection and all the three did not have the authority, though while
conducting a surprise inspection or the inspection at the Roadways Bus, which carries passengers
and is a mode of public transport it would be the duty to introduce them as traffic inspectors and the
purpose for which they have boarded the bus. It is not mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the
statement of the three witnesses discussed hereinabove. Though, P.W.-3, Budhi Mal has denied the
'flying squad' at Saharanpur Depot.

26. The copy of way-bill, which is proved by the prosecution as Exhibit Ka-2, on asking P.W.-
1 Attar Singh stated that they checked 42 passengers entered in the way-bill. He has also stated that
the way-bill shows that 18 passengers have alighted at Roorkee Bus Stand and some passengers
have alighted at Ram Nagar Camp Bus Station. He further stated that the way-bill shows that 27
passengers have boarded the bus from Roorkee Bus Stand. This shows that the bus was initially
halted at Ram Nagar Camp and subsequently at Roorkee Bus Stand, where the passengers have
alighted and boarded the bus. There is inconsistency in the statement of three witnesses regarding
boarding the bus at Kishanpur or Bhagwanpur. The distance between Bhagwanpur and Kishanpur
is nearly 4 to 5 kms in view of the statement of P.W.-1. The statements of the three witnesses of
fact, the traffic inspectors does not reveal that any of the passengers was without ticket, but their
main objection was that six persons have boarded the bus at Bhagwanpur, whose entry has not been
made in the way-bill, whereas, Rule 20 of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Rules, 1972
provides conductor with the authority to issue the tickets to the passengers. P.W.-3 Budhi Mal, who
has authored the apology letter has admitted it in his deposition as P.W.-3. This apology letter is
proved by the defence as Exhibit Kha-4. It is necessary to reiterate the apology letter, which was
produced in S.T. No.162 of 1984 (State Vs. Nathu Ram and others), under Sections 332, 341 IPC,
Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Saharanpur.

"सेवा में,

सहायक क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक

सहारनपुर।

ननवेदन है कक आि ददनांक 6/8/81 को वाहन को िेक ककया वाहन ठीक प्रकार थी। िो वेबबल पर
ररमाकथ ददया गया था व गलत है वह काट ददया गया है। अब इनके खखलाफ कोई कायथवाही नहीं की िायेगी
नाथू राम व अतर ससंह मार कर भाग गये हैं। मैंने बीि बिाव ककया तो मेरे कपड़े फट गये हैं। मैं अपनी गलती
की माफी मांगता हूाँ। यह मैं सब कुछ रज़ामन्दी से सलख रहा हूाँ।
ह०
(भवदीय)"
3 All. Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
221

27. The apology letter, which is proved as Exhibit-Kha-4 reveals that the inspection was
carried out on 06.08.1981. The bus was rightly being plied. The remark on the way-bill was
incorrectly made, which is deleted, as such, it has no adverse effect. Further discloses that Nathu
Ram and Attar Singh sprinted away after beating. His clothes were torn, when he was meddling
between the two and tendered apology. This apology letter is denied by P.W.-3 Budhi Mal to be
written out of free will and volition but he wrote it under pressure. It is not the case of prosecution
that the apology letter has been dictated to Budhi Mal. This means that what he has written, is in his
own language. He has made specific mention that the remark made on the way-bill was incorrect.
The Rules, 1972 quoted hereinabove, particularly, Rules 21, 22, 23 and 24 clearly reveals the
liability to obtain ticket, for boarding the bus. This liability is on the passenger. Rule 22 provides
penalty for breach of Rule 21 and the authority is the Magistrate or an authorized employee before
whom, on requirement, the passenger would produce the ticket. Moreover, Rule 21 is a nonobstante clause, and authorizes only driver and conductor to travel in a bus without ticket and does
not exempt even traffic inspectors. Therefore, what authorizes the informants, the three traffic
inspectors to enter into the bus for checking, has not been proved by the prosecution, which is an
essential per-requisite for recording conviction for the offence under Sections 332, 333 IPC. In the
case of D. Chattaiah and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has
categorically observed that there should be a nexus of act of accused to deter the public servant in
discharge of his official duty.

28. The learned trial judge has utterly failed to appreciate this necessary requirement in the
judgment of conviction. The entire evidence on this point is presumptive in nature. Assuming the
informants were discharging their duties, whereas, the Rule of 1972 provides the phrase 'authorized
employee' in Rules 23 and 24. Thus, to my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove that the
public servants, the three traffic inspectors, were discharging their official duty as such.

29. This Court further requires to consider whether the accused-appellant has given a blow on
the face of Nathu Ram in the bus, which has resulted into loosing of his two teeth. This is because
the prosecution case is such that Attar Singh and Budhi Mal were being hurt and Nathu Ram was
grievously hurt.

30. It is an admitted fact that the informants, the three traffic inspectors have boarded the bus
of Roadways, wherein the accused-appellant was a conductor. It was the testimonies of three
witnesses of fact that they have been beaten by the accused-appellant in the bus. It is also stated by
the three witnesses of fact that in the departmental inquiry initiated against the accused-appellant,
his service was terminated.

31. On the point of voluntary causing hurt or grievous hurt, P.W.-1 Attar Singh has stated in
his examination-in-chief that after reading the remark on the way-bill, the accused has challenged
Nathu Ram, whereas, in the written information, Exhibit Ka-1 this witness has mentioned that
Nathu Ram has advised the conductor to be obedient to department and its officers on which, he
gave two fist blows on his face. It is due to the hitting that Nathu Ram lost his two teeth and fell
down, suffered injury on his knee. According to this witness, the incident took place at Ram Nagar
Camp, Roorkee. He further stated that he and Budhi Mal were tried to save Nathu Ram. It is at this
juncture that accused has snatched the diary, torn it apart and threw it. There is nothing on record to
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
show the torn diary, which is only in statement. Attar Singh and Nathu Ram have alighted from the
bus, whereas Budhi Mal was pulled inside the bus.

32. On the point of incident, P.W.-2 Nathu Ram has stated in his examination-in-chief that
after entering the remark when he was alighting from the bus at Ram Nagar Camp, Roorkee. The
accused has seen the remark and asked him to delete the same. On his refusal to delete, the accused
gave two fist blows on his face and he has lost his two teeth. He further stated that when Attar
Singh came to save, the accused has snatched his diary, torn it and threw it inside the bus and also
tattered the shirt, under shirt and pant of Budhi Mal.