The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should not disturb concurrent findings unless there is a manifest injustice.

ORDER :

(Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.)

The revision was preferred under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C .’) against the Judgment in Crl.A.No. 251 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Amalapuram, whereby and where-under the revisionist was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months while allowing the appeal in-part. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram (FAC), Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, after trial, convicted and sentenced the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.,’) to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; for the offence punishable under Section 338 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and for the offence under Section 337 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ a fine of Rs.400 /- was imposed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Mr Polisetty Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the revisionist had reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that even though there was no witness, who saw the occurrence of the offence that the revisionist drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court erred in coming to wrong conclusions and convicted the revisionist. He further submitted the Revisionist is working as a clerk in an eye hospital, passed intermediate, and got married and blessed with two children, alternatively, the learned counsel for the revisionist pleaded that the revisionist may be sentenced to undergo the imprisonment which the revisionist had already endured.

4. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W- 1 and P.W-2 categorically deposed that the driver drove the vehicle rash and negligently, but they did not identify who drove the vehicle at the time of accident. However, P.W-6 the Doctor testified that revisionist drove the vehicle and that the testimony is sufficient to hold that the revisionist was the driver at the time of the accident and on a combined reading of the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-6 and P.W-9, it can be safely relied on the version of the prosecution that the revisionist was the driver and he drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The learned Courts below had not erred either in law or facts, in finding the revisionist guilty, ergo, it is urged to dismiss the revision.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by both the Counsel. I have perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in C.C..No.161 of 2003 dated 20.08.2007, passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mummidivaram, East Godavari District, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

7. It is well settled by the Apex Court in Amarchand Agarwalla v. Santi Bose , (1993) 4 SCC 10 that normally the revisional jurisdiction of the Court has to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.

8. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Kalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram ,. (1973) 2 SCC 583 held that inspite of wide language of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ( Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ) which empowered the High Court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order recorded or passed by any inferior Court within my jurisdiction and as to the regularity of proceedings of such inferior Court and inspite of the fact that under this provision of law this Court can exercise interalia the power conferred on a Court of appeal, this Court is not sup