1. This Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2003 passed in Criminal Case No.2898 of 1995 by the learned Second Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapadvanj, whereby the learned Magistrate had convicted and sentenced the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo S.I. for four months and fine of Rs.500/, in default, to further undergo for one month S.I. The applicant was ordered to undergo S.I. for one month and fine of Rs.200/, in default, to further undergo for 15 days S.I. for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said judgment and order, the applicant preferred Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2003 before the learned Presiding Officer, Third Fast Track Court, Nadiad and learned Presiding Officer has confirmed the judgment and order dated 28.4.2003 passed in Criminal Case No.2898 of 1995 by the learned Magistrate, by passing the judgment and order dated 27.12.2004.
2. The short facts of the prosecution are such that the applicant was driving rickshaw rashly and negligently and, therefore, the injured Dahyabhai was sitting in said rickshaw fell down because of such negligent driving on the part of the applicant. Therefore, case was registered on 18.8.1995 before Kathlal Police Station being C.R. No.101 of 1995 and chargesheet was filed after completing the investigation. The prosecution examined oral evidence of P.W.1 Manubhai Ambalal at Exhibit 9, P.W.2 – Punambhai Alias Punjabhai Motibhai at Exhibit 11, P.W.3 – Dahyabhai Kalabhai, injured at Exhibit 12, P.W.4 – Kalabhai Motibhai, complainant at Exhibit 4 and P.W.5 – Mathurbhai Gababhai Chauhan, Investigating Officer at Exhibit 15 and documentary evidence like complaint at Exhibit 13 and Panchnama at Exhibit 14. After considering the documentary and oral evidence, the case was tried and the applicant was convicted by the learned Magistrate as stated above.
3. Learned advocate Mr. I.M. Pandya for learned advocate Mr. Dave for the applicant submitted that the case of the prosecution is not supported by the medical evidence and no injury certificate of the injured or any evidence with regard to medical treatment is produced. The injured person named Dahyabhai Kalabhai P.W.3 examined at Exhibit 11, himself deposed that he fell down from the rickshaw because of rash and negligent driving of the applicant, but his deposition was not considered while passing the impugned judgment and order by the learned Magistrate. He also submitted that place of the offence, where the incident took place, is a zigzag way and at that time, fair was going on and the applicant fell down from the rickshaw and sustained injuries. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the applicant and the applicant was driving his vehicle in a moderate speed. But the learned Magistrate did not consider the facts of the case and evidence produced before him. The Appellate Court has not considered the same while confirming the judgment order of learned Magistrate. Therefore, he prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Courts below.
4. Learned APP Mr. Jani submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are just and proper and they are not required to be disturbed in any way. The offence committed by the applicant is proved by the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W. 3 and the applicant was total negligent while driving the vehicle rickshaw. He submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are required to be confirmed by dismissing the present Revision application.
5. Perused the application and papers produced before me and considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties. It is transpired from the evidence recorded in the case that the injured received injury on his head during travelling in the rickshaw and looking to the injury of injured, the applicant was driving the rickshaw in such a zigzag way, in rash and negligent manner. Such kind of negligent driving on the part of the applicant, the incident took place and the injured sustained the serious injuries over his head and other parts of his body. From the oral evidence, it also transpires that the witnesses also tried to inform the driver but the applicant failed to stop his rickshaw and, therefore, the incident occurred and the injured sustained serious injury over his head. The applicant did not take care the lives of the passengers including the injured, who were travelling in the rickshaw and he was driving in rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the offence as alleged against the applicant are proved beyond reasonable doubt. I am in total agreement with the findings of the Courts below. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same and therefore, the Revision Application is required to be dismissed. Hence, Revision Application is dismissed.
6. In view of the above, the Revision Application is dismissed against the applicant. The judgment and order passed by the learned Second Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj in Criminal Case No.2898 of 1995 dated 28.4.2003 and judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 3rd Fast Track Court, Nadiad passed in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2003 dated 27.12.2004 are hereby confirmed. The applicant is on bail and in view of dismissal of Revision Application, his bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the concerned Court shall issue nonbailable warrant to effect the arrest of the applicant. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)