This application under section 401 read with section 397 CrPC is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 29.8.97 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11 (2) of 1997 upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court up on the petitioner for commission of offence\under section 279 and 338 IPC. 2.1 have heard Mr. BN Majumder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Tripura. The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this application may be stated as under : 3. The prosecution alleged that on 16.7.95 the petitioner was driving a Jeep bearing No.TRT 2758 at a very high speed on Assam Agartala Road and due to that rash and negligent driving the vehicle went out of the road knocking down one Smti Apama Debnath and as a consequence of that accident Smti Apama Debnath sustained bleeding injuries on her person. The injured Smti Debnath was admitted to GB Hospital and at subsequent stage she was discharged after recovery. " 4. A case was registered and the petitioner was charge sheeted for commission of offence under section 279 and 338 IPC. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held the petitioner guilty for commission of the offence under section 279 and 338 IPC and after making this finding learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for commission of the offence under section 279 IPC and sentenced him thereunder to suffer RI for one month. As regards the conviction for commission of offence under section 338 IPC, learned Magistrate passed order to pay a fine of Rs.500/-1 only. Learned Magistrate also passed the order that fine money, if realised, shall be paid to the victim after expiry of the period of appeal. But he did not mention anything what will happen in case fine money is not realised. On going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, that is, the appellate authority I also find that learned Sessions Judge did not also deal with this point. But he did not mention anything what will happen in case fine money is not realised. On going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, that is, the appellate authority I also find that learned Sessions Judge did not also deal with this point. On the other hand, on going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge I find that learned Sessions Judge made the findings under paragraph 7 of his judgment and towards the end of this paragraph, he made the observation that he did not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned trial Court. This paragraph 7 covers about 4 pages. I really fail to understand why it was not properly divided into more paragraphs. 6. That apart, on going through the judgment of the Courts below particularly the judgment of trial Court, I find that learned trial Court did not comply with the mandatory provisions laid down under section 354 (1) (b) CrPC which reads as under: "Every judgment referred to in section 353 shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision." 7. As regards the points to be dealt with in this case. Learned trial Court under paragraph 7 of its judgment stated as under : "To prove the accusation under section 279 IPC it is to be proved that on 16.7.95 at about 0500 hours the accused person was driving a Jeep bearing No.TRT 2758 rashly and negligently along the Assam Agartala Public Road at Nalgaha Radio Centre endangering human life or safely of others or was likely to cause injury or hurt to any person. Similarly, to prove the accusation under section 338 IPC it is to be proved that on the date, time and place just mentioned, rash and negligent driving by the accused person resulted in causing grievous hurt to Smti Aparna Debnath." The points which are required to be dealt with for commission of offence under section 279 IPC read as under: (i) Whether the accused was driving the vehicle or that he was riding; (ii) Whether it was a public way on which he was driving or riding; (iii) Whether he was driving or riding in a rash or negligent manner. So far as offence under section 338 IPC is concerned, the points which are required to be dealt with are as under : (i) Whether the accused did the act in question i.e. whether he was driving the vehicle in question; (ii) Whether it was done rashly or negligently; (iii) Whether it was such as to endanger the life or personal safety of others; (iv) Whether such act of the accused caused grievous hurt. 8. On going through the judgment of the trial Court I find that learned trial Court did not make specific finding on all the points as mentioned above. Moreover, on going through the judgment of the trial Court I find that learned trial Court hardly dealt with the evidence that was brought out from the prosecution witnesses during cross examination. The records of the trial Court show that the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and out of those 12 witnesses only PW 4 was not cross examined. It should be borne in mind that cross examination is also evidence and it is incumbent upon the trial Court to deal with the cross examination and make its finding as to why the evidence brought out during cross examination was not acceptable. But in the instant case the judgment of the trial Court does not show that he dealt with the cross examination adequately. 9. Apart from this I find that trial Court did not mention what will happen in case the petitioner fails to pay the fine money. Learned trial Court did not mention anything what will happen in default of payment of fine. Learned appellate Court also failed to take note of this infirmity in its judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not, however, argued on all those points stated above. He simply argued that neither learned trial Court nor the appellate Court properly appreciated the provisions laid down under section 361 CrPC. Learned appellate Court also failed to take note of this infirmity in its judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not, however, argued on all those points stated above. He simply argued that neither learned trial Court nor the appellate Court properly appreciated the provisions laid down under section 361 CrPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though learned Magistrate has mentioned in his judgment that he did not consider it proper to give the petitioner the benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act, such casual statement does not comply with the mandatory provision of section 361 CrPC which very clearly says that the trial Court has to record the special reasons why he did not consider it necessary for applying the provisions of the special Acts mentioned in the section. It is true that learned trial Court did not mention any reason apart from a casual statement as found by me above. It is also to be noted that section 361 CrPC is mandatory and hence it requires the Court to record special reasons if he does not apply the provisions of the special Acts mentioned in the section in cases where they may be applied. 11. In course of his submission, Mr. Majumder has also submitted that the petitioner at the time of occurrence was below the age of 21 years. But on going through the records, I do not find that any sort of evidence in this respect was produced before the trial Court The paper sheet containing the examination under section 313 CrPC also does not show that the age of the accused was recorded at that time. It is not understandable to me why the learned Magistrate did not consider it necessary to record the age of the petitioner at the time when he was examined under section 313 CrPC. On going through the relevant paper on which the statements of the petitioner were recorded at the time of examination under section 313 CrPC, I find that learned Magistrate also put a question being question No. 1 as to whether the petitioner heard the evidence or not. I think such a question is not necessary as an accused in a particular case may deny having heard the evidence. I think such a question is not necessary as an accused in a particular case may deny having heard the evidence. What is necessary and significant is that the provision in section 313 CrPC is one intended to secure to the accused an opportunity to explain the evidence against him and therefore to benefit the accused and not to operate as to his detriment. It is obligatory on the Court to question the accused on the circumstances appearing against him in the simpliest possible manner. The trial Court should not loose sight of the fact that this provision is a very important one and under this provision an important duty is cast upon the Court which should be performed in a proper way. 12. Now as regards the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 401 of CrPC it is clear from the language of the section that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is very extensive and the High Court .can very well interfere when there is glaring defect or error in the procedure or in view of the law or evidence taken leading to a flagrant miscarriage of justice. I have already pointed out the infirmities committed not only by the trial Court but also by the appellate Court and in view of the infirmities pointed out above, I am of the view that this case needs to be dealt with leniently. 13. In this context it has also to be mentioned that Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at-least the petitioner should be relieved of the sentence of RI. Accordingly, upon consideration of the facts, circumstances and the infirmities pointed out above, I am of the view that a sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice and accordingly the sentence of one month's RI is converted to fine only i.e. a payment of fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only. Both the sentences shall run concurrently i.e. petitioner is to pay a fine of Rs.500/- only and in default of payment of fine money the accused petitioner is to suffer RI for six weeks. Fine money, if realised, shall be paid to the victim Smti Aparna Debnath. 14. The petitioner is directed either to pay the fine money within a period of two weeks or to surrender before the trial Court to suffer the term of imprisonment. 15. Fine money, if realised, shall be paid to the victim Smti Aparna Debnath. 14. The petitioner is directed either to pay the fine money within a period of two weeks or to surrender before the trial Court to suffer the term of imprisonment. 15. A copy of this order be sent to Mr. BR Deb, District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura District and another copy be sent to Mr. S. Sikdar. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class wherever he be.