1. - By this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 2.7.99 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (for short, "the appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 58/1995, by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 13.11.1995 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh (for short, "the trial Court") in Criminal Regular Case No. 84/95 (178/1992).

2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this criminal revision petition, are that on 17.1.92, the Medical Jurist, P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner informed the Police Station, Sadar, Bikaner that the dead- body of Kanhaiya Lal Sunar, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in an accident, has been brought to the hospital, which is lying in the mortuary. On this information, ASI Shankar Lal reached the hospital and started proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC. He prepared the Furd-Surat-Lash and got the autopsy conducted. One Poonam Chand informed ASI Shankar Lal that on 16.1.92, at about 2.45 PM, near the railway crossing of village Bharpalsar, accused-petitioner Saleem was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and on account of slumber of the driver, the jeep capsized, as a result of which various occupants of the jeep suffered injuries and Kanhaiya Lal Sunar succumbed to injuries on the spot. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Bikaner forwarded the statement of Poonam Chand and other relevant documents to Police Station, Rajaldesar, on which FIR No. 7/92 (Ex.P/16) was registered and after completion of investigation, challan was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, who, in turn, transferred the case for trial to the trial court. The trial Court framed charges against the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC. Accused petitioner denied the charges and sought trial of the case. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and produced certain documents. The statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded, who denied the allegations. By the judgment and order dated 13.11.1995, the trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment; six month' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 338 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment; one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order of the trial court, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. However, counsel for the accused-petitioner pleaded "No Instruction" before the appellate court. The appellate court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 2.7.1999, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned judgments and orders of the courts below.

4. The revision petition suffers from the delay of 1804 days, though office has mentioned it as 1890 days. The petitioner has submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating therein that he is a patient of tuberculosis and being a driver, he remained busy in his profession. However, when he reached his house at Lalgarh, he was informed by his family members that one policeman had come regarding the accident which took place in 1992. When he contacted his counsel, who pleaded "No Instruction" on 30.6.99, he came to know that the appeal filed by him had been dismissed on 2.7.99. T