ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 26.09.2013 in C.A.No.58 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, modifying the fine amount imposed in the Judgment dated 23.05.2013 in S.T.C.No.382 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem and to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.02.2012 at about 13.30 hours at Salem City, four roads to New bus stand Main Road in the Periyar Over bridge within the limit of Hasthampatti Police Station, when the defacto complainant along with his two sons was riding his two wheeler Hero Honda Pleasure, vehicle bearing Registration No.TN.30D1687, the accused / petitioner who had driven his Innova car bearing Registration No.TN.30G0313 by overtaking the another vehicle had come in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the two wheeler driven by the defacto complainant, due to the impact, the defacto complainant and his two sons fell down and sustained injuries.

3.On the complaint given by P.W.1 / defacto complainant, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.84 of 2012 for the offences under Section 279, 337(2) and 338 IPC against the Revision Petitioner / accused. After completion of investigation, final report was filed. On receipt of the Final Report along with the relevant documents, the case was taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.382 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem and summons were issued to the accused /

Revision Petitioner.

4.On appearance of the Petitioner/Accused, he was furnished copies of the relevant documents and the final report under Section 207 Cr.P.C. When the petitioner / accused was questioned about the charge, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty.

5.After giving sufficient time and upon considering the police report and documents sent along with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court finding that these grounds for presuming that the accused / petitioner had committed the offence questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the Petitioner/Accused, had examined P.W1 to PW8 on its side and marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. No material object was produced. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence were adduced. The Trial Court found the Petitioner/Accused not guilty for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and acquitted the accused as per Section 255(1) Cr.P.C., whereas found that the accused / petitioner guilty for the offences under Section 337 (2 counts) IPC and convicted and imposed a fine of Rs.300/- for each count and found the accused / petitioner guilty for offence under Section 338 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.600/- and in default to pay the fine amount, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks for each count.

7.Aggrieved by the said conviction order, the petitioner / accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.58 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem in S.T.C.No.382 of 2012. Against which, the present Criminal Revision has been filed.

8.Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Accused while assailing the Judgment of both Courts below would restrict his arguments to only one point. He would submit that in this case, the petitioner was charged and tried for the offence under Sections 279, 337(2 counts) and 338 IPC. The Trial Court finding that the rash and negligent manner is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts found the accused not guilty for offence under Section 279 IPC and acquitted the petitioner. When the Trial Court having held that the prosecution has not proved that the accused had acted in a rash an