IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 65 OF 2007 SHRI RAJENDRA NAIK, PONDA, GOA. ... Petitioner Versus STATE ... Respondent Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, advocate for the applicant. Ms. W. Coutinho, P.P. for the respondent. Coram:- D. B. BHOSALE, J. Date:- 17th January, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below convicting the accused under section 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 134(a)(B) read with 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The maximum sentence of two years has been awarded under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr.Arun Bras De Sa, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the judgments of the courts below on the ground that the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution has not been considered by the courts below in proper perspective. He submitted that all the witnesses have simply stated that the vehicle was fast and none of them has mentioned the speed with which the vehicle was driven and in the absence of such evidence it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was rash and negligent. In other words he submitted that fast speed does not necessarily mean the driving was rash and negligent. He further submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not spell out the alleged offence and hence this court in its revisional jurisdiction has powers to re-appreciate the evidence. 4. At the outset I am not inclined to entertain this revision at all. I perused the judgments of both the courts below and the other material. It is clear from the judgments wherein the evidence of all the witnesses has been considered by the courts below and more particularly the trial Court held that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving at the relevant time. Merely because the witnesses have not stated the exact speed of the vehicle it cannot be stated that the findings recorded by the courts below on the point of rash and negligent driving are wrong. The evidence of all the witnesses including the panch witnesses clearly show that the vehicle was not only fast but it was rash and negligent driving when it met with the accident which took the life of five persons. In my opinion, there is no glaring defect either in the procedure or manifest error of law resulting into a miscarriage of justice in convicting the accused, warranting interference by this court in revision. In the circumstances the revision application is rejected. D. B. BHOSALE, J. hcs