JUDGMENT - S.M. HAJARNAVIS, J.:---This is an application for revision filed by the wife of the deceased victim against an order of acquittal, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Bombay acquitting the respondent No. 1 of an offence punishable under section 304-A Indian Penal Code in respect of death of the husband of the petitioner. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14-9-1974 at about 6-15 a.m. the accused was driving a passenger bus No. MRY 4947 in Greater Bombay, at Sion Circle. At the relevant time, he had entered Sion Circle, where the accident took place. The deceased Purshottam, aged 25 years, was proceeding in the same direction namely from North to South and was also in the Sion Circle. He was a little ahead of the above mentioned bus. It is the prosecution case that the accused was driving the bus rashly or negligently. He overlooked the deceased Purshottam and suddenly turned to the left, which resulted that Purshottam was knocked down and the bus ran over him. His skull was broken and he died instantaneously at the spot. Thereafter the Police arrived on the spot and made a spot panchanama. After completing the investigation, the police filed the challan against the accused-respondent No. 1 for an offence under section 304-A Indian Penal Code. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined Motor Vehicle Inspector, who stated that the motor vehicle was in order and no mechanical defect was noticed. Police Sub-Inspector and one of the two eye-witnesses were examined. The learned Magistrate after considering all this evidence held that the prosecution has failed to prove that it was the accused who was driving the bus and that the bus was driven by the accused rashly or negligently, and therefore he acquitted the accused. It is against this judgment that the present application has been filed by the widow of the deceased. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Police Prosecutor has not examined the material witnesses in this case. He has unnecessarily failed to examine one of the eye-witnesses and therefore a grave injustice has been caused in this case. In my opinion, this submission is well founded. The law on this point is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in, (Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another)1, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 707. He has unnecessarily failed to examine one of the eye-witnesses and therefore a grave injustice has been caused in this case. In my opinion, this submission is well founded. The law on this point is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in, (Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another)1, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 707. The Supreme Court has observed that : "This Court observes that it is not sufficient to say that the judgment under revisions "perverse" or "Lacking in true correct perspective". It is pointed out further that by ordering a retrial, the dice is loaded against the accused, because, however much the High Court may caution the Subordinate Court, it is always difficult to re-weigh the evidence ignoring the opinion of the High Court. Again in (K. Chinnswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh)2, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1788 it is pointed out that an interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had over-looked some evidence. Although the list given by this Court is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal as finds it in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by this Court." 5. In this particular case, one of the two eye witnesses is not examined and the reason given by the prosecution is that the witness has left Bombay and had gone to his native place at Mangalore. It is not stated that the efforts were made to search him at Mangalore and the prosecution has not been able to serve him with the summons. The reason for not examining the witness is neither cogent nor acceptable. This is a serious offence of driving a vehicle rashly or negligently resulting in a death of a human being. The deceased was a young man of 25 years who met with an accident and the material eye witness has not been examined by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate ought to have issued a fresh summons or a warrant to get the eye witness examined. The deceased was a young man of 25 years who met with an accident and the material eye witness has not been examined by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate ought to have issued a fresh summons or a warrant to get the eye witness examined. The learned Magistrate ought to have made efforts to get correct information how the incident occurred. The prosecution, at least, should have summoned and examined the second eye witness. In my opinion, the order of the acquittal requires to be set aside. The matter is sent back to the trial Court with a direction that the learned Magistrate should examine the second eye witness and decide this case according to law. He may re-summon the witnesses already examined for further examination if the parties so desire. 6. Rule is made absolute and the case is remanded back to the trial Court. -----