IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1971 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : November 16, 2009. Pankaj and another ...... Petitioner(s). Versus. State of Haryana and another ..... Respondent(s). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner (s). AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 11.03.2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, vide which the accused- respondent has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court of the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the driver of the bus should have been much careful, while driving his vehicle as it is a heavy vehicle and always have a dominant position on the road. The accident took place was on the scooter. The evidence has come on record, which clearly shows that the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle at high speed and that too rashly and negligently. He relies upon the statement of eye witnesses PW4 Sukhbir Singh and PW5 Pankaj. He further contends that the learned Trial Court also mentions the vehicle to be at high speed, keeping in view the fact that there were skidding marks on the impact of brakes, applied by driver of the bus. He on this basis prays that this Court should interfere in the case CRR No. 1971 of 2009. in hand as the acquittal granted to the accused-respondent by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case. The learned Trial Court has fully appreciated the evidence, which has been brought on record. All aspects with regard to the condition of vehicle, place of impact, nature of evidence, which has been led by the parties, have been duly considered and on consideration of the same, the learned Trial Court has given benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent (driver of the bus). There is no illegality in the findings, which have been recorded by the learned Trial Court, which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, which is restricted in its powers exercised by this Court. The opinion, which has been formed by the learned Trial Court, is fully justified on the basis of records and evidence placed on record for its perusal. Finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. CRM No. 37580 of 2009. In the light of the order passed herein above, no order is required to be passed in the application for condonation of delay. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE November 16, 2009. sjks. -2-