Mr. V. B. Bansal, J. ( 1 ) BY way of this revision petition Bailister has challenged his conviction under Secs. 304-A and 279 Indian Penal Code recorded by a Metropolitanmagistrate, Delhi on 8/10/1986 who was sentenced to R. I. for one yearwith a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 for offence under Sec. 304-A and R. I. for three monthswith a fine of Rs. 500. 00 for the offence under Sec. 279 IPC. ( 2 ) ON appeal the order of conviction was upheld but the order ofsentence was modified inasmuch as the sentence under S. 304-A Indian Penal Code wasreduced to nine months. ( 3 ) STILL being not satisfied the petitioner has filed the present petition. ( 4 ) SHO Police Station Civil Lines filed a challan against the petitionerin FIR No. 6 dated 2. 1. 1979. According to the prosecution story on 2/01/1979 DD No. 70-A was recorded in P. S. Civil Lines on the basis ofthe information received from the police control room that Bus No. DLP-6965was involved in an accident near Water Works No. 2, Chandrawal near Majnuka Tila in which an old lady has died. Copy of this DD entry was given tos. I. Mahabir Singh who along with police officials reached the spot and foundbus No. DLP 6965 and the dead body of the old lady lying which wassubsequently found to be of Smt. Goma. He did not find any eye witness ofthe occurrence and on the basis of his inspection case was registered. Statementsof the witnesses were recorded and the post-mortem was conducted of the dead490 body. Accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation challanwas filed. ( 5 ) IN support of its case prosecution examined 11 witnesses. In hisstatement recorded under S. 313 Cr. P. C. the petitioner stated that he was thedriver of the bus No. DLP 6965 at the time of the occurrence. He has,however, denied that he was rash or negligent or that his bus struck againstthe old lady Smt. Goma. His plea has been that it was a false case andinterested witnesses deposed against him. ( 6 ) LEARNED trial Court after hearing arguments sentenced the appellantand his appeal was accepted in part as well. ( 7 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gonethrough the records. His plea has been that it was a false case andinterested witnesses deposed against him. ( 6 ) LEARNED trial Court after hearing arguments sentenced the appellantand his appeal was accepted in part as well. ( 7 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gonethrough the records. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed that the prosecution story rests on the testimonyof Rajinder (PW8), an eye witness. ( 9 ) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the petitioner has been that thepresence of this eye witness is highly improbable and he has been introducedsupsequently. I have read out complete statement of the witness and I havenot been able to find any material in his statement so as to hold that he wasnot a reliable witness or that he has deposed contrary facts. In thesecircumstances, I do not find any wrong in the finding arrived at by the trialcourt affirmed on appeal holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Secs. 304-A and 279 IPC. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner prays for leniency. ( 11 ) I find that the sentence has already been reduced by the appellatecourt and do not find any scope for interference. ( 12 ) AS a result, the petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.