ORDER

Heard Sri.Umashankar M. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No.632/2017 dated 13.01.2022 which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.19/2022 dated 13.10.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC.

3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. On 01.04.2017 at about 12.10 p.m. within the limits of Chintamani Town Police Station, on the road leading to Shalini Military hotel, the accused being the driver of K.S.R.T.C., bus bearing registration No.K.A.40-F- 1080 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against C.Ws.1 and 2 who were the drivers of the Honda Activa bearing registration No.K.A.50-U6071. As a result, C.W.1 and 2 sustained grievous injuries and two wheeler vehicle was damaged and sum of Rs.20,000/- was born by C.W.1. Accused after dashing against the vehicle wherein, C.W.1 was travelling, drove the bus into Banana shop of C.W.2. Therefore, charge sheet was filed.

4. The learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and secured the presence of the accused, charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty.

Therefore, the trial was held.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution and relied on twelve documentary evidence on record.

6. As against the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, there was no oral or documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of the accused.

7. The learned Trial Magistrate recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein, accused has denied all the incriminatory materials.

8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate after hearing the parties, learned Trial Judge found that the prosecution case is acceptable and there is no explanation offered by the accused to the incriminatory materials found against him in the case of prosecution and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC and sentenced as referred to supra.

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.19/2022.

10. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the arguments, vide judgment dated 13.10.2023, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.

11. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

12. Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, Sri.Umashankar M. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that in the case on hand, materials are available on record that the accident has occurred and revision petitioner being the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. is not disputed.

13. However, he contended that accident was beyond human control and learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court ought not to have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC.

14. He further contended that in the event, this Court is up holding the order of conviction, Court may consider setting aside the simple imprisonment for a period of three months ordered by learned Trial magistrate which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition.

15. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments and contended that as a consequence of the accident, a pety Banana shop has been damaged to a great accident and therefore, awarding sentence of imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC is justified and thus, sought for dismissal of