The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, emphasizing the limited scope of interference in criminal revisions.

ORDER

Sudesh Bansal, J. - This revision petition under Section 374 r/w 401 CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 05.07.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.17/2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 30.11.2002 in case No.134/1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Khanpur, District Jhalawar, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:

(a) Section 279 IPC-Two months simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.

(b) Section 337 IPC- Two months simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.

(c) Section 304A IPC- One Year simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further undergo one month simple imprisonment..

2. Counsel for petitioner submits that the tractor in question belonging to Dev Lal Meena was in stationary condition outside of the house of its owner, when the petitioner tried to move the tractor and as there was slope in the road, the tractor rolled downwards due to which, the accident occurred and the deceased died. There was no carelessness on the part of petitioner, however, he has been convicted and sentenced and the petitioner has remained in custody for about 15 days.

However, counsel for petitioner submits that in case this Court does not interfere with impugned orders, the petitioner will not question the conviction, but he be sentenced to the period already undergone. He placed reliance upon an order of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 04.10.2023 in Criminal Revision Petition No.109/2004: Taranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, prays for awarding the sentence of petitioner to the period already undergone.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition.

4. Having heard counsel for parties and perusing the material available on record including judgments passed by Courts below, this Court finds that the scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact in criminal revision is too limited as has been held by the Apex Court in case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam [(2009) 13 SCC 330] as under:-

9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence.

10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice.

8. ....The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure."

5. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. The State of Chattisgarh [AIR 2022 SC 3283], thus:-

"8. ....The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'CrPC') vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to rever