The Magistrate is not required to inform unrepresented accused of their right to free legal aid in summary trials under special laws, and the offence of failing to issue tickets to passengers under S. 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Seva (Bina Tikat Yatra Ki Rok) Adhiniyam, 1974, is an economic offence to which the exception to the right to free legal aid applies.

( 1 ) BOTH petitioners are convicted u/s. 7, the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Seva (Bina Tikat Yatra Ki Rok) Adhiniyam, 1974, for short, the 'act' by Special Motor Vehicles Magistrate, Gwalior. The sentence imposed in one case is fine of Rs. 50/-, in default simple imprisonment for five days; and in the other case, the fine is Rs. 100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for seven days. Having preferred revisions unsuccessfully, they are now assailing their convictions and sentences in this Court, separately, under S. 482 of the Criminal P. C. for short, the 'cr. P. C. ' or the 'code'.

( 2 ) DURING the course of analogous hearing of the two petitions it was found necessary by one of us (S. K. Dubey, J.) to refer to larger bench the question agitated before him on the basis of a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Hiralal Gopilal Rathore's case 1988 Cr LJ 457. In his view, the decision required reconsideration because a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Avadh Bihari Diwan v. MPSRTC, M. P. No. 88/87, decided on 20-1-1987, had dealt with the same1993 Sugreev Singh v. State of controversy in a different manner and that decision was not cited before learned single Judge, deciding Hiralal's case (supra ).

( 3 ) ACTING as a Mobile Court, the Special Motor Vehicle Magistrate, had tried both petitioners who, at the relevant time, were employed as conductors in the buses operated by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, for short, the 'corporation', established under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Petitioner, Sugreev Singh was on duty on 3-7-1986 in the bus operating on the route Mahua to Morena when it was checked by the Flying Squad of the Corporation. The other petitioner Mohd. Saleem was Conductor in a different bus on 2-7-1986, operating on the route Dholpur to Bhind when the Traffic Supervisor of the Corporation detected the offence. On the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, holding Mobile Court, petitioner Sugreev Singh admitted his guilt, but the other petitioner Mohammad Saleem did not, necessitating prosecution witnesses being examined in his case and they were cross-examined by him. In both cases, the offence alleged was that the two petitioners, as Conductors, had realised fares from passengers, but had not issued them tickets. For decision in one case, conviction is recorded on plea of guilty and in the other case, on the basis of the evidence adduced, on which the offence was found proved. The common plea of both petitioners that the convictions and sentences passed against them are illegal and unconstitutional due to their being denied reasonable opportunity to defend themselves with the aid of a lawyer is indeed the kernel of the controversy leading to the Reference.

( 4 ) BEFORE the provisions of the Act or of the Code are examined, with respect to which contentions are raised before us in this Reference, we may usefully point out that in Hiralal Gopilal (supra), on similar facts, the conviction was quashed and a retrial was ordered relying implicitly on Apex Court's decision in the Sukhdas case, AIR 1986 SC 991 : (1986 Cri LJ 1084) taking the view that the Magistratewas under an obligation to inform the accused that he was entitled to free legal services at the cost of the State if he was unable to engage a lawyer. It may be useful also to note in this context that on similar facts, relying also on the same decision, another single Judge of this Court, in MPSRTC v. Jaiprakash, 1991 MPLJ 439 has upheld the verdict of acquittal rendered in appeal holding that in Khatri's case, AIR 1981 SC 928 : (1981 Cri LJ 470), it was so mandated. In both the cases, the trial Court had rendered the verdict holding the accused guilty u/s. 7 of the Act. In Avadh Bihari's case (supra), Khatri's decision was relied on, but the plea was negatived on the footing that there was nothing before the Magistrate to show or suggest that the accused was pov