1 REVN 563.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 563 OF 2010 Mr. Balasaheb Bhagwan Babar. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. M.A. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 18th AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Revision Applicant felt dis-satisfied by the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mhaswad, Taluka – Man, Disrict – Satara in Summary Criminal Case No.32 of 2006. The learned Judge recorded conviction for an offence punishable under Section 279, 338 of I.P.C. Same was questioned by the Revision Applicant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj at Vai by Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2010 and by order dated 25.10.2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not disturb the conviction. These orders are assail by the Applicant – Original Accused. 2 REVN 563.10.sxw 4. The learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant submits there was no element of rashness or negligence on the part of the Applicant while he was driving the vehicle between 5.00 p.m. to 5.35 p.m. on 1.9.2006. 5. From the record it is illustrate that the Accused/Applicant has not disputed that he was plying the vehicle MH-13B-2908, a tempo from Shenwadi side proceeding ahead. It also shows that the victim, the injured Suresh was standing by the side of road and that too at right side of the vehicle driven by the Accused/Applicant. Injured Suresh was dashed by the vehicle driven by the Accused/Applicant by the right side of drivers wheel. Taking these aspects into consideration, the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel that accident was from rear side is contrary to record. Another feature that has been tried to accelerate is that, there was no reason for the Accused/Applicant to drive the vehicle in a speed. 6. The Applicant was required to observe minimum safety while driving the vehicle in the Weekly Bazar. However, he did not attended to the minimum standard of speed and dragged the injured Suresh to some distance after he dashed to him and the vehicle was stopped thereafter. The injured suffered at his leg which was crushed below the wheel of the tempo causing profuse bleeding. At the material time, he was taken to nearby hospital and thereafter, the FIR was registered against the Accused/Applicant. 3 REVN 563.10.sxw 7. Though, scope in the present proceeding is limited, however, I have analyzed the evidence recorded and also finding of both the Court, I do not see that there was any error on the part of both the Courts in recording conviction for an offence under Section 279 and 338 of I.P.C. as the Courts have found that the Accused/Applicant drove the vehicle at a public place rashly or negligently with a knowledge that it would endanger human life. Accused/Applicant thereby caused grievous hurt because of his negligence. Consequently, the conviction recorded by both the Courts need not be questioned. The Criminal Revision Application lacks merit. Dismissed. Rule discharged. 8. The Accused/Applicant to surrender to under go the imprisonment within 60 days from today before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mhaswad. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)