26 % 25.05.2011 Present: Mr. Francis Paul, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State with SI Sushil Kumar, P.S. I.P. Estate. + Crl. Rev. P. No. 253/2011 * Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPG by the Metropolitan Magistrate; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Section 279 IPG; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with compensation of ^6^000/- to be paid to legal heirs of the deceased and in default of the compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A IPG. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Gr.P.G. has been given to the petitioner. Petitioner preferred Griminal Appeal No. 44/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge against his conviction as well as the sentences awarded to him by the Trial Gourt. Appeal has been dismissed by the order dated May, 2011 impugned in this petition. Gonviction as well as sentences of the petitioner has been maintained. That is how petitioner is before this Gourt by way of present revision petition under Section 397 Gr.P.G. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified V As per the prosecution, petitioner, while driving blue line bus bearing No. DLIP 5986 on route no. 118 in a rash and negligent manner, hit scooter bearing no. DL7SG 0921 from behind. As a result of the impact, scooter is fell down and the bus passed over his feet. Victim was rushed to JPN Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. Incident was witnessed by PW2 HC Subhash Chand. PW8 Dr. S.K. Khanna has proved post-mortem report. MLC was proved by PW6 Dr. S.D. Sharma as Ex. PW6/A. As per the medical evidence, injuries were possible in a road traffic accident. PW2 HC Subhash Chand has supported the prosecution version. He deposed that on Sl^t August, 1997, he was present at the red light under ITO Flyover. At about 10:40 am, he saw scooter bearing no. DL7SG 0921 coming from the old Yamuna Bridge. He also noticed blue line bus no. DL-IP 5986, plying on root no. 118, coming at a very high speed, behind the scooter. The bus was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached under the bridge, it struck the scooterist. Due to the impact scooter rider along with scooter fell down and the offending bus ran over his feet. He removed the injured to JPN Hospital. He apprehended the petitioner at the spot. He has categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to negligence on the part V of petitioner. He stated that FIR was registered on his statement. He has identified his signatures on his statement Ex. PW2/A. Trial Court found the testimony of this witness trustworthy, reliable and sufficient to conclude that while driving the offending bus at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner, petitioner had hit the scooterist going ahead of the bus. PW7 Ramji Lai, who is the owner of offending bus, deposed that on the date of accident petitioner was driving the bus. Petitioner had been apprehended by PW2 at the spot. Thus, identity of the petitioner has also been fixed. Appellate Court has also meticulously scrutinized the evidence adduced during the trial and has concurred with the findings returned by the Trial Court. It is well settled that powers of High Court in its revisional jurisdiction are limited, in the sense that entire evidence has not to be scrutinized to return a finding of fact different than what had been returned by the courts below. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be compared with the appellate jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction. High Court can interfere only if it is shown that the Trial Court has committed any procedural irregularity or has over looked the well settled legal position which may have resulted in 'miscarriage of justice'. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any such procedural irregularity or illegality in the orders of the courts below which may have resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as, challenge to the conviction has been given up. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the petitioner is a poor person; he is about 59 years old; he is sole bread earner of his family; he has three unmarried daughters to support. Petitioner has no previous criminal record. Accordingly, sentence of the petitioner may be modified and he be released on the sentence which he has already undergone i.e. about 4 months. Keeping in mind totality of the circumstances, sentence of the petitioner is reduced from 1 year to 4 months simple imprisonment under Section 304-A IPG. Rest of the sentences as awarded by the Trial Court are maintained as it is. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Needless to add that petitioner shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. PATHAK, J. May 25, 2011/ga