J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner herein was brought before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate to face trial as an accused on the basis of report (“charge sheet”) under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), presented on 03.07.2002, upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.560/2001 of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on allegations of his involvement in certain acts of commission and omission constituting offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Metropolitan Magistrate having taken cognizance and issued process, secured the presence of the petitioner and eventually put him on trial on the basis of notice under Section 251 of Cr. PC, issued and served on 12.09.2002. The proceedings in the criminal case (No.789/2002) came to an end on 21.08.2013 with the order recorded by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) holding the petitioner guilty and convicting him for offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC on the basis of “plea of guilt”, this being followed by award of punishment in the form of fine of Rs.500/- on each count, the default sentence being simple imprisonment for five days. Noticeably, the fine was deposited on the same day on behalf of the petitioner (he himself not being present) by his surety.

2. The petitioner challenged the legality, correctness and propriety of the aforesaid order dated 21.08.2013 in the court of sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing a petition (Criminal Revision No.24/2015). The Additional Sessions Judge, however, was not impressed. He concluded that there was no error committed by the trial court, the order passed leading to conviction and sentencing as above being reasoned and speaking, there being no grounds for any interference.

3. The petition at hand was filed invoking the inherent power of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to assail the legality and propriety of the above mentioned proceedings of the ACMM and the view taken by decision dated 12.07.2016 of the revisional court.

4. Before coming to the issues that arise for consideration, it is necessary to take note, albeit briefly, of the background facts.

5. It appears that on 03.11.2001, a motor vehicular accident occurred at about 11:10 a.m. in the vicinity of Kali Mandir, Dheerpur, near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar. The incident involved two motor vehicles, one a car bearing registration No.DL-1CG-4764 (hereinafter, “the car”) and, the other, a motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-8SR- 0502 (hereinafter, the “motorcycle”). The car statedly was driven by the petitioner herein (the accused) in a rash (or negligent) manner, it having emerged at the scene on Burari road from the direction of Kingsway Camp. On the other hand, the motorcycle was driven by a boy named Divik Kashyap @ Mikki, then aged 17 years, he carrying along, on the pillion, his tutor Manoj along with his two and a half years old cousin Nikle. The motorcycle had come to the place of collision from the side of Burari as the tutor Manoj was to be dropped at Parmanand colony. It is alleged that on account of rash (or negligent) driving of the car by the petitioner, it collided against the motorcycle as a result of which all the three persons travelling thereon fell down and suffered injuries. The accident statedly was seen by one Pateshwar Prasad who was working as a painter in a private property close to the place of collision. One of the injured persons along with the child were taken to the trauma centre while the other person injured was shifted to another hospital separately. Eventually, both Mikki and Manoj were brought to the casualty of Lok Nayak hospital at about 12:05 p.m. on 03.11.2001 and were medically examined against medico-legal certificate (MLC) nos.24411 and 24412 respectively. The MLCs would show that Mikki was discharged on 09.11.2001 while Manoj was discharged