Order. The petitioner was convicted under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default, to suffer further imprisonment for one month and he was also convicted under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, by the Munsiff Magistrate, Harapanahalli. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Court of the Sessions Judge at Bellary and the learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment, dated 27th September, 1966, acquitted the petitioner of the charge under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. But, however, he affirmed the conviction against the petitioner under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. The facts which have given rise to these criminal proceedings may be stated, briefly, as follows. The petitioner was a Head Constable attached to Teligi police outpost in Bellary district. P.W. 2 Muniyappa, a police constable attached to that outpost, was on sentry duty on 8th December, 1964, at about 4-30 p.m. According to the prosecution, the petitioner took P.W. 2 to a place called Duggavati, which is at a distance of about 12 miles from Teligi, for purposes of detecting prohibition cases. They were not able to succeed in detecting any prohibition cases. Therefore, they checked some lorries at the tollgate of Duggavati till about 7-30 p.m. By then, a passenger bus came from the side of Harihar proceeding towards Teligi. P.W. 2 wanted to go in that bus along with the petitioner to Teligi. But, the petitioner told him that they might go a little later from that place. Therefore, they did not travel in that bus. Five minutes after the bus left Teligi, a lorry bearing No. MYU 3228 driven by P.W. 1 came from the side of Harihar and that lorry was stopped by these two persons. The petitioner requested the driver to take him and P.W. 2, as far as Teligi. But, P.W. 1 refused to take them stating that there were already three persons in the cabin. According to the prosecution, the petitioner threatened P.W. 1 and then got into the lorry and sat at the steering. The petitioner requested the driver to take him and P.W. 2, as far as Teligi. But, P.W. 1 refused to take them stating that there were already three persons in the cabin. According to the prosecution, the petitioner threatened P.W. 1 and then got into the lorry and sat at the steering. P.W. 2 sat in the cabin and one person that was in the cabin went and sat behind the cabin. P.W. 1 sat on the right side of the petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, in a high speed without license, towards Teligi. As the vehicle approached the bus stand of Teligi and as it was going at a high speed of 40 to 45 miles, P.W.2 requested the petitioner to apply the brakes and drive the vehicle slowly. But, the petitioner instead of applying the brakes, pressed the accelerator and the vehicle went in an uncontrolled speed where there was a curve, as a result of which it dashed against the luggage that had been unloaded from passenger bus and then dashed against the bus that was standing there. Before the lorry dashed against the bus, P.W. 2 managed to jump out of the lorry, but he was not hurt. After the impact, according to the prosecution, the petitioner seems to have managed to escape from the lorry. The persons that were in the bus, including the persons that were sitting in the bus stand, caught hold of P.W. 1 and assaulted him stating that he was responsible for rash and negligent driving. But, he and P.W. 2 informed the crowd that it was the petitioner that drove the vehicle. Thereupon, P.W. 1, according to the prosecution, went to the police at Teligi outpost and lodged his complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 13 who was camping there at that time. On the basis of that complaint, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution sought to prove its case by leading oral evidence of the witnesses who were present at the scene and also in the lorry. No one, except P.W. 2, supported the case of the prosecution. The three persons including P.W. 1 who travelled in the lorry, did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution sought to prove its case by leading oral evidence of the witnesses who were present at the scene and also in the lorry. No one, except P.W. 2, supported the case of the prosecution. The three persons including P.W. 1 who travelled in the lorry, did not support the case of the prosecution. The cleaner of the lorry was not at all examined. The persons that were in the bus, including the driver of that bus to (sic) which the lorry dashed, were not examined. But, 1 he conductor of the bus was examined. He also did not support the case of the prosecution. With the result, P.W. 2 was the only witness who supported the case of the prosecution to prove the same. The learned Magistrate sought corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 2 from the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 7 and 11. P.W. 3 is the brother of the owner of the bus which was involved in the accident. His evidence is that on that night he got a telephone message from Teligi when he was at Harapanahalli, that his bus was involved in an accident at about 10 p.m. When he was about to leave Harapanahalli to Teligi, according to him, he met the petitioner in the bus-stand of Harapanahalli and that the petitioner told him that his bus was involved in an accident and that he would compensate for the damage. The learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 3 that the petitioner made a confession before him admitting his guilt. The learned Magistrate was in error in taking into consideration the statement made by the petitioner, even if it be true, as a confession admitting the guilt viz., that the petitioner drove the vehicle without licence and rashly and negligently, endangering the lives of others. What all the petitioner stated to P.W. 3 was, as stated earlier, that his bus was involved in an accident and that he would compensate for the damage. It is difficult to conceive how the learned Magistrate took this statement as a confession of the petitioner admitting his guilt. P.W. 7 is the Chairman of the village Panchayat of Teligi. He has staled that he saw the petitioner shortly after the accident in the bus stand near the lorry along with P.W. 2. It is difficult to conceive how the learned Magistrate took this statement as a confession of the petitioner admitting his guilt. P.W. 7 is the Chairman of the village Panchayat of Teligi. He has staled that he saw the petitioner shortly after the accident in the bus stand near the lorry along with P.W. 2. P.W. 11 who happened to be near the bus stand at the time of the accident, deposed that he learnt from P.W. 1, who is the driver of the lorry, that the accident was caused by the petitioner. These three pieces of evidence were taken by the learned Magistrate as corroborating the version of P.W. 2 in regard to the incident. P.W. 1, as already stated, has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has been treated as hostile. His version is that he drove the lorry in question on that day from the side of Harihar and came and stopped in the bus stand at Teligi in a down gradient, having applied brake and he went to answer the calls of nature. By the time he came, the vehicle had moved and hit against the bus. He denied having taken P.W. 2 or the petitioner in his lorry on that day from Duggavati and that the petitioner drove the vehicle. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking the evidence of these three witnesses, as corroborating the evidence of P.W. 2. The same mistake has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge. What he has done is, instead of discussing the evidence, he has stated that these three witnesses corroborate the evidence of P.W. 2 and he was in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate in this behalf. It is clear from the judgment of both the Courts below that they have not relied upon the evidence of P.W. 2 solely, to base a conviction on the petitioner. The Courts below have relied upon the evidence of P.W. 2 because that evidence found corroboration in the evidence of the three witnesses mentioned above. If the two Courts had not considered the evidence of the three witnesses and had relied upon the evidence of P.W. 2 solely, this Court would have been very reluctant to disturb a finding of fact by the two Courts. If the two Courts had not considered the evidence of the three witnesses and had relied upon the evidence of P.W. 2 solely, this Court would have been very reluctant to disturb a finding of fact by the two Courts. The two Courts below have taken into consideration the evidence which is inadmissible, and could not have been used against the petitioner. If the Courts below and particularly the learned Sessions Judge had looked into the evidence properly, as it should have been done while dealing with an appeal, I am sure he would not have agreed with the finding of the trial Court. However, Mr. Vijaya Shankar the State Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W. 2 remains unchallenged and if that evidence is taken into consideration, it establishes clearly that it was the petitioner that drove the lorry without a licence. The records of the outpost, as admitted by P.W. 13 the Sub-Inspector of Police, reveal that P.W. 2 was throughout a sentry even after 7 p.m. that day. There is nothing to indicate that when P.W. 2 was taken by the petitioner to Duggavati for prohibition raid, another person was put in charge of the sentry duty of the outpost. Although P.W. 2 has stated in his evidence that one police constable by name Siddappa was put in charge of the sentry duty when he and the petitioner left the outpost at 4 p.m., the records show that it is not so. The Sub-Inspector of Police has also deposed that when he came to the police outpost Police Constable Siddappa was there and that he came to know from the said Police Constable that he was on sentry duty. But, this version again cannot be believed because the entry in the station house diary shows that P.W. 2 was on sentry duty. There is no evidence, except the solitary testimony of P.W. 2 to show that the petitioner took him from the outpost for prohibition duty to Duggavati. P.W. 2has deposed that at Duggavati they did not detect any prohibition cases, but they checked some lorries at the toll gate. There is no evidence, except the solitary testimony of P.W. 2 to show that the petitioner took him from the outpost for prohibition duty to Duggavati. P.W. 2has deposed that at Duggavati they did not detect any prohibition cases, but they checked some lorries at the toll gate. No evidence has been produced by the prosecution to show, at any rate, that these two persons were at Duggavati at about 7 or 7-30 p.m. If really, as stated by P.W. 2, they checked some lorries that were at Duggavati and conducted prohibition raid, it was not at all difficult for the prosecution to have let in evidence to show that these two persons were at that place at that time. As regards the incident, the version of P.W. 2 is that, although a bus came at about 7-30 p.m. from Harihar side to Duggavati which was proceeding towards Teligi and he requested the petitioner to go in that bus to Teligi, according to him, the petitioner informed him that they might go little later. It is further his evidence that five minutes later the lorry in question came and the petitioner immediately decided to go in that lorry and therefore stopped it. It is difficult to believe this version. The version of P.W. 2, further, is that even though P.W. 1 who was driving the lorry refused to take them, stating that there was no place, the petitioner threatened P.W. 1 and forced himself into the lorry and himself began to drive it. According to him, the driver sat by the side of the petitioner on the right side and he sat in the cabin along with two others replacing the one who was already there, behind the cabin. He has stated that the petitioner drove the vehicle at an uncontrolled speed and when he requested him to apply the brakes, instead of doing so, he pressed the accelerator, as a result of which it dashed against goods that had been unloaded from the bus and then hit the bus. We have no evidence to show that the lorry went in an uncontrolled speed and hit the goods which was unloaded and then to the bus and in these circumstances one would normally expect great damage not only to the lorry, but to the goods and also the bus. We have no evidence to show that the lorry went in an uncontrolled speed and hit the goods which was unloaded and then to the bus and in these circumstances one would normally expect great damage not only to the lorry, but to the goods and also the bus. Nothing has been stated by the prosecution with regard to the goods. But, some evidence has been placed to show that there was some damage to the lorry and also to some portion of the bus, which, even according to the prosecution, was very minor in nature. Because of this, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the petitioner of the charge under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. The main question for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner drove the lorry at all that night, as stated by P.W. 2. As already stated, the version of P.W. 3 is that he saw the petitioner at Harapanahalli at about 9-30 p.m. The evidence of P.W. 6 Chiksiddappa Police Constable attached to Teligi outpost is to the effect that he saw the petitioner at 9-30 p.m. at Teligi in front of his house. It is difficult to reconcile these two versions. The petitioner's case is that at the time of the incident he was not at all at Teligi. Even accepting the evidence of P.W. 11 that the petitioner was at Teligi at about the time of the incident, it is difficult to believe that he drove the lorry, as alleged by the prosecution. No one has come forward, in this case, to speak that P.W. 2 travelled in the lorry that right The passengers that were in the bus at Teligi, which, according to the prosecution, was involved in the accident, including the driver and the conductor of that bus lave not come forward to support the case of the prosecution that P.W. 2 travelled in the lorry. If, as stated by P.W. 2, the lorry was driven by the petitioner with uncontrolled speed as a result of which the accident happened, it passes one's imagination how this witness did not sustain any injuries inspite of the fact he lumped out of the lorry to save himself. That fact is not spoken to by any person. If, as stated by P.W. 2, the lorry was driven by the petitioner with uncontrolled speed as a result of which the accident happened, it passes one's imagination how this witness did not sustain any injuries inspite of the fact he lumped out of the lorry to save himself. That fact is not spoken to by any person. If, as stated by P.W. 2, the driver was on the right side of the steering and the other two persons including P.W. 2 were to the left of the petitioner, it is difficult to believe how the petitioner would escape after the incident. If these circumstances has been considered, I am sure that the Courts below would not have arrived at a finding they have arrived at. It is true that in dealing with oral evidence, a Court of revision would not normally interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below and particularly the trial Court, because obviously the trial Court has the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. But that is not to say that even in a proper case the revision Court cannot interfere. No finding can be said to be either correct or proper when the materials on which it is based cannot possibly lead any reasonable man to arrive at that finding and in such a case it will be open to the revision Court to set aside it and replace it by what, according to it, would be the legitimate finding on the evidence. The object of the revisional jurisdiction is to confer upon the criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising therefrom. Ordinarily, a finding of fact should not be interfered with in revision. Revisional powers are discretionary and are exercised for the ends of justice. In this case, the Courts below have gravely erred in arriving at a finding which could not have been arrived at, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution had been properly tested by usual standards. For the foregoing reasons, this is a fit case in which this Court should interfere with the findings of the Courts below. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the conviction under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the sentence passed thereon against the petitioner and acquit him of that charge. S.V.S.-----Revision allowed; conviction set aside.