Kumaraswamy, J.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. I have perused the records.

2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments in respect of considering the provisions of Probation of Offenders Acts, 1958 to the case in hand. Considering the submissions of both sides, the point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?"

3. The relevant facts of the case leading to this revision petition are as follows:

That on 31.5.2002 at about 9.35 accused No.1 was driving the KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA 09 F 1271 at Shifa Cross, Bhatkal. At the time, the charge sheet witness No.1 was alighting from the said bus. The bus moved all of a sudden and she fell down and sustained injuries. The bus driver of the said bus was driving the bus with high speed and also in a negligent manner. Therefore this accident has occured. The Investigating Agency has laid charge sheet against the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 IPC and under Sections 184, 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the Trial Court, PWs.1 to 11 were got examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-7 were got marked. The Trial Court has relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 11 and also the documentary evidence, and have convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and under Sections 184, 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, Karwar. The appellate Court, after examining the whole evidence, have affirmed the finding but modified the sentence to the effect that instead of sentence of imprisonment he was directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The nature of power of this Court in revision is the same as that of Court of appeal. But, such power is given to prevent gross and palatable failure of justice, and it should not be exercised in such a way as to give a right of appeal where such right is excluded by the code. Further, in order to satisfy as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the finding, I have examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also the documentary evidence.

6. PW- 1 has stated in his evidence that she was alighting from the bus. The bus moved all of a sudden. She fell down from the rear door and sustained injuries. Though this witness was cross-examined, nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. PW-5 is an eye witness. His evidence corroborates with the evidence of PW-1. PW-6 is another eye witness. He has stated in his evidence that when the bus came to Shifa Cross, one lady passenger got down from the bus and the bus moved, and consequently she sustained injuries to her waist. Though this witness was cross examined by the defence counsel, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence. PW-7 is also another eye-witness. He has turned hostile. But, during his cross-examination, he clearly admits that on 31.5.2001 at 9 p.m. a passenger who fell down from the bus was taken to the hospital. PW-9 is the doctor who examined the patient PW-1 Rukmini, aged about 20 years and she has sustained three injuries out of which third injury is greivous in nature. The Trial Court relying on the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also the documentary evidence, have come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and under Sections 184, 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Normally this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Further, the revisional Court should not substitute its own findings for that a Magistrate on the question of fact. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court