IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 54 OF 2009 MR. PRAMOD @ JAGANATH GAONKAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE ... Respondent Mr. Deepak Gaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 13th October, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Gaonkar, Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is an accused who has been convicted under sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. by the Learned trial Court by Judgment dated 4.4.09 and whose conviction has been upheld by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge by Judgment dated 8.10.09. 3. The accused was driving a maruti car bearing No. GA-04-C-0348 and was going up the slope at Gokulwadi, Sanquelim. There was a bus going in the same direction which was stationery and was driven by Pw3/Sher Ali Khan. There was a motorcyclist namely, Pw5 Gajanan Vantekar who was coming at the relevant time from opposite direction along with his wife and child. The accused instead of halting behind the said bus took a chance to overtake the said bus and in the process first dashed against the said bus and thereafter against the motorcycle driven by the said Pw5 Gajanan Vantekar. This version is supported not only by the driver of the bus namely Pw3/Sher Ali Khan and Pw5/Gajanan Vantekar but also by Pw2/Dipti Parab who was in the said maruti car driven by the accused. Both the Courts have placed reliance on their evidence and have convicted the accused and in my view, there is no scope at all for interference in revisional jurisdiction. 3. As regards sentence, the Learned trial Court has imposed a sentence of one month under sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. The Learned trial Court has not imposed any fine nor has ordered any compensation to be paid to the said Pw5/Gajanan Vantekar. It appears that, as regards sentence on behalf of the accused, reference was made to two Judgments of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.63 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2005. Counsel on behalf of the accused submits that the second Judgment relates to a case under section 304-A while the first Judgment was identical to the factual situation prevailing in this case. 4. As regards sentence, no two cases can be similar. As already stated, no fine has been imposed against the accused nor any compensation ordered to be paid, and that was, as Learned Counsel submits, the accused was unemployed at that time. 5. The accused has only been sentenced for a period of one month under the said three sections. The sentence imposed does not appear to be excessive, considering the facts of the case, and therefore calls for no interference from this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 6. Revision petition is hereby rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. oc