1 ndm 3 revn.665.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 665 OF 2009 Shabbir Yunus Mulani. ... APPLICANT Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... RESPONDENT ­­­­­­­­ Mr. Kedar Patil for Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State. ­­­­­­­­ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 29 th March, 2010. P.C. 1 By consent, the Revision is taken up for final hearing. 2 By way of present Revision, the Applicant challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First­Class, Medha dated 27 May, 2004 in Summary Criminal Case No. 11533 of 1999 thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304­A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/­ and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month and the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Satara dated 14 th November, 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 2 40 of 2004 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present Applicant. 3 It is the prosecution case that on 01 st May, 1999, the milk tanker, which was driven by the Applicant gave forceful dash to the water tanker, which was stationed, due to which the person traveling in tempo died and other sustained injuries. 4 From the evidence which was lead on behalf of the prosecution, it could be seen that the deceased Anant Dixit was traveling in the milk tanker, which was driven by the present Applicant which had dashed with the stationary water tanker, due to which the deceased died in the accident. The prosecution has also examined one Samadhan Jagtap who was traveling in the said milk tanker and received injuries. It can also be seen that the said witness has deposed that the milk tanker dashed forcefully. He has further deposed that the road on which the accident had taken place was having slope. It has further come in his evidence that the water tanker, which was stationary did not have light and indicator signal. He has further deposed that before the accident took place, one truck from the opposite side had come and its power light reflected in the eyes of the driver of the milk tanker, due to which he lost his control. It has further come in evidence that accused tried to control his milk tempo, however, due to shortage of time accused could not avoid the impact. 3 5 Insofar as the other witnesses are concerned, their evidence would not be relevant and inasmuch as it pertains the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the Panchanama. The sole eye witness is PW­2. It is the defence of the accused that since the water tanker, which was stationary was not having any signals and there was one truck coming from the opposite side having power light, which was reflected on the eyes of the Applicant and due to this he lost his control. Not only this, but it has also come in the evidence of the prosecution witness that the Applicant tried to control his tempo, however, due to reflection of light, he could not save the impact. 6 From the evidence of the prosecution witness, it can thus clearly be seen that the accident was not as a result of rash and negligent driving by the Applicant, but the accident occurred due to the reasons beyond the control of the Applicant. In that view of the matter, the order of conviction is not sustainable in law and the same is quashed and set aside. The accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 7 Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. [ B.R. GAVAI, J ]