Digambar Baburao Ingavale . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

¶1

abs

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 209 OF 2000

¶5

 Digambar Baburao Ingavale .. petitioner
 V/s

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

 Mr.Ganesh Gole for the petitioner.

¶8

 Ms.Rajeshree M. Gadhvi, A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.

¶10

 DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY 2008

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶12

 1. Heard.

¶13

 2. This revision application is directed against

¶14

 the judgment and order dated 16th May 2000 of the IInd
 Additional Sessions Judge, Satara confirming the
 decision dated 25th February 1999 of the Judicial
 Magistrate, First Class, Satara convicting the revision
 petitioner for an offence punishable under section 279
 read with 337 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned
 order, while confirming the order of conviction the
 learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence of 3

¶15

 - 2 -

¶16

 months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- to fine
 of Rs.1000/- only.

¶17

 3. The revision petitioner is a bus driver employed
 by the Maharashtra State Road Transport (for short "the
 S.T."). On 22nd January 1998, the petitioner was
 driving a S.T. bus bearing registration

¶18

 No.MH-02-FA/1940 from Pune to Radhanagari. At about

¶19

 7.15 p.m., the bus reached the accident spot near Kanher
 Dam in village Varye. The S.T. bus overtook a truck
 which was ahead of it and then collided with an auto
 rickshaw coming from the opposite side injuring the
 driver of the auto rickshaw. Spot panchanama
 (Exhibit-12) was prepared and the offence was registered
 against the petitioner of rash and negligent driving.
 Prosecution examined 7 witnesses including the rickshaw
 driver who was injured, and an eye witness. The
 petitioner did not examine himself as a witness nor did
 he examine any other witness. After considering the
 evidence adduced, the learned Judicial Magistrate came
 to the conclusion that the petitioner was driving the
 S.T. bus rashly and negligently and by such rash and
 negligent driving, he gave a dash to the rickshaw coming
 from the opposite direction injuring the rickshaw
 driver. The trial court accordingly convicted the
 petitioner for an offence punishable under sections 279
 and 337 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer

¶20

 - 3 -

¶21

 simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of
 Rs.500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment
 for one month. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of
 the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed an appeal
 before the Sessions Court, Satara. The learned
 Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 16th May
 2000 confirmed the order of conviction of the
 petitioner. However, he modified the sentence by
 setting aside the order of simple imprisonment and
 sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.
 That order is impugned in this revision.

¶22

 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
 that the appreciation of evidence by the trial court has
 been erroneous and the trial court ought not to have
 believed the witnesses. All the witnesses were local
 witnesses whereas the petitioner was a stranger in the
 town. The local witnesses were interested witnesses and
 therefore their statements should not have been
 believed. The trial court as well as the appellate
 court erred in believing the evidence of the interested
 witnesses and the conviction on the basis of such
 interested witnesses was unsustainable. I am unable to
 agree.

¶23

 5. There is no rule of law nor of prudence that
 local witnesses should not be believed. If an accident

¶24

 - 4 -

¶25

 occurs on a public road in a village and is witnessed by
 one or more witnesses, the eye witnesses are more likely
 to be the residents of the locality or the persons
 visiting that locality on business or some other
 purpose. Merely because the persons are residents of
 the village or the locality where the accident occurred,
 they cannot be called as interested witnesses. On
 merits, nothing has been shown to me why the witnesses
 should have been disbelieved.

¶26

 6. It is settled principle of law that revisional
 jurisdiction is to be exercised in exceptional
 circumstances when there is a glaring defect in
 procedure or manifest error of point of law resulting in
 miscarriage of justice. In Amar Chand v. Shanti Bose,
 reported in AIR 1973 SC 799, the Supreme Court has laid
 down as follows:

¶27

 "20. Even assuming that the High Court was
 exercising jurisdiction under Section 439, in
 our opinion, the present was not a case for
 interference by the High Court. The
 jurisdiction of the High Court is to be

¶28

 exercised normally under Section 439, Criminal
 Procedure Code, only in exceptional cases, when
 there is a glaring defect in the procedure or
 there is a manifest error of point of law and

¶29

 - 5 -

¶30

 consequently there has been a flagrant
 miscarriage of justice. The High Court has not
 found any of these circumstances to exist in the
 case before us for quashing the charge and the
 further proceedings."

¶31

 In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu, reported in AIR 1979
 SC 663, the Supreme Court reiterated the position thus:

¶32

 "9. So far as the first point is concerned,
 it is to be emphasised that although the
 revisional power of the High Court under S.439
 read with Sec. 435 of the Code of Criminal
 Procedure, 1898 is as wide as power of Court of
 Appeal under S.423 of the Code, it is now well
 settled that normally the jurisdiction of the
 High Court under Sec.439 is to be exercised only
 in exceptional cases when there is a glaring
 defect in the procedure or there is a manifest
 error on a point of law which has consequently
 resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice.
 Reference in this connection may be made to the
 decisions of this Court in Amar Chand Agarwalla
 v. Shanti Bose (1973) 4 SCC 10 : (AIR 1973 SC
 799) and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (1973) 2 SCC
 583 : (AIR 1973 SC 2145). In the latter case
 viz. Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (supra) this

¶33

 - 6 -

¶34

 Court following its earlier decision in Amar
 Chand Agarwalla v. Shanti Bose (supra) held
 that in spite of the wide language of S.435 of
 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which
 empowered it to satisfy itself as to the
 correctness, legality or propriety of any
 findings, sentence or order recorded or passed
 by any inferior court situate within the limits
 of its jurisdiction and as to the regularity of
 any proceeding of such inferior court and in
 spite of the fact that under S.439 of the Code
 it can exercise inter alia the power conferred
 on a court of appeal under S. 423 of the Code,
 the High Court is not expected to act under
 S.435 or S.439 as if it is hearing an appeal.
 The power being discretionary, it has to be
 exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or
 lightly. Judicial discretion, as has often been
 said, means a discretion which is informed by
 tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined
 by system."

¶35

 7. In the absence of any perversity in the manner
 of appreciation of evidence this Court, in exercise of
 revisional jurisdiction, cannot set aside the concurrent
 finding of fact recorded by the two courts below about
 the negligence in driving the S.T. bus by the

¶36

 - 7 -

¶37

 petitioner. For these reasons, there is no merit in the
 revision application, which is hereby rejected. Rule is
 discharged.

¶38

 (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Digambar Baburao Ingavale . v. the State of Maharashtra .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Baburao Ingavale . v. the State of Maharashtra .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darjit Singh Veriesingh Baxi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinod Nandkumar Pednekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sameer Mubarak @ Abdul Maniyar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mustaq Hakim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhiraj Mulji Gohil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Ramchandra Yadav Vs Shubha Gangadharan Nair and Anr.