JUDGMENT 1. -By this revision petition Hukma Ram has challenged the judgment of learned Sessions judge Jaisalmer DL 15.3.1999, by which he confirmed the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer dated 19.12.1997 by which petitioner was convicted and sentenced as follows : (1) Under Sec. 279 IPC to 3 months S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to further undergo 15 days S.I. (2) Under Sec. 337 IPC to 3 months S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 3001- and in default to further undergo 15 days S.I. (3) Under Sec. 338 IPC to 6 months S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo one months S.I. (4) Under Sec. 304-A IPC to 2 years S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo 2 month S.I. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor I gone through the record of the case. 3. Briefly stated. Amritlal gave a statement on 15.3.1991 to a police officer of Jaisalmer wherein he stated that he went in Bus No. RJM-799 from Jaisalmer to Adbala which was being driven by the petitioner-Hukmaram. The bus was over loaded. About 15 passengers sat on the front side and on the roof of the bus. The bus started from Jaisalmer at about 3.30 p.m. It went about 6 k.m. away from Jaisalmer. Road was steep. The petitioner over took the two buses. He rashly and negligently drove the bus. Another bus over took bus driven by petitioner, but the petitioner again took over the same bus and left the road and moved towards left side. The bus collapsed. Passengers who were sitting on the roof fell down. Some of them were crushed under the bus and others suffered a large number of injuries. Shivdan, Mehtab Singh, Madan Singh died at the spot. Another 50-60 passengers suffered injuries out of them five or six passengers suffered serious injuries. They become unconscious. Another bus which was coming from behind took away certain persons to Jaisalmer. Statement Ex. P/1 is the FIR. Police registered a case. Investigation was started during which injured persons were examined by the doctors. Doctor found fractures on the bodies of certain passengers. He X-rayed Parhalad Ram, Ladna Khan. 'Bhagwan Singh, Dhanjiram, Khujra who had suffered grievous injuries. Another bus which was coming from behind took away certain persons to Jaisalmer. Statement Ex. P/1 is the FIR. Police registered a case. Investigation was started during which injured persons were examined by the doctors. Doctor found fractures on the bodies of certain passengers. He X-rayed Parhalad Ram, Ladna Khan. 'Bhagwan Singh, Dhanjiram, Khujra who had suffered grievous injuries. Post-mortems of Mehatab Singh, Premaram, Madan Singh, Shivdan, Roop Singh, Chandan Singh, Nichlaram, were conducted as they expired either at the time of accident or thereafter. After investigation petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under which he has been convicted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge as it appears from his judgment was not correct. He further submitted that the occurrence took place due to sudden break down of front axial tube of the vehicle and the petitioner was not in a position to control it. He also submitted that all witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution and the report of the M.T.O. verifies the case of the petitioner that the accident occurred due to the reason which was beyond control of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in revisions evidence cannot be re-appreciated by this Court. He cited State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namhoodiri etc., Judgment Today 1999 (I) page 456 , wherein it.was held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the,evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in' appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On the basis of this citation he submitted that there is no such glaring feature in this case. 5. He drew my attention to the plea of the petitioner at the time when accusation was read over to him. He stated therein that the front tube of the vehicle broke down and therefore the bus could not turn and overturned. On the basis of this citation he submitted that there is no such glaring feature in this case. 5. He drew my attention to the plea of the petitioner at the time when accusation was read over to him. He stated therein that the front tube of the vehicle broke down and therefore the bus could not turn and overturned. He submitted that the petitioner took a different plea when he was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. when he stated that a vehicle came from opposite side and dashed against the bus. So these two versions indicate that accident took place due to negligent driving of the petitioner. 6. It is a case in which glaring features are prominent which caused injustice to the petitioner. The bus was over loaded and certain passengers sat on its roof. The plea of petitioner is supported by MTO's report Ex. P/28. 7. Then the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the witnesses have stated that a vehicle came from the opposite direction and dashed against the bus. 8. It is stated by the witnesses of prosecution themselves that road was steep and that there was a dip on the road. It is proved by site plan Inc. P/3. PW 5 Parhalad Ram admitted that the petitioner tried to over take but Sagat Singh PW 7 who is not a hostile witness stated that the vehicle was being driven at the speed of about 60 k.m. per hour which according to learned Public Prosecutor was excessive at that place. He admitted that he just guessed the speed. According to him the dip was about 11/2 feet deep on the road. PW 9 Lunaram stated that when the bus was passing through the dip it fell down. He also stated that there was a bus going ahead of the bus in which he was travelling. According to him the speed might be about 5 k.m. per hour. PW 20 Durga Ram says that the bus was going with high speed but was unable to tell the speed. So there is no definite evidence about the speed being P.4.Shive at the time of occurrence. According to PW 14 Gordhan a bus was going ahead. If it was so that bus could not have been driven with high speed. He admitted that the bus collapsed due to imbalance. So there is no definite evidence about the speed being P.4.Shive at the time of occurrence. According to PW 14 Gordhan a bus was going ahead. If it was so that bus could not have been driven with high speed. He admitted that the bus collapsed due to imbalance. But PW 17 Leela Dhar.stated that the petitioner tried to over take the bus which was ahead and as soon as he crossed, the bus collapsed. 9. PW 19 Dalpat Singh also stated that the petitioner tried to over take. Thus, when there is clear-cut evidence to the effect that there was a steep dip on the road and there was a turn and it was found by the MTO that the front axial tube of the vehicle broke down the bus could not have moved further. It cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for the accident and criminally liable. Initially.the petitioner took the plea which is supported by MTO's report Ex. P128. A different plea could be legally taken by petitioner when evidence against him was explained and when the prosecution witnesses had themselves stated that another vehicle dashed against the bus driven by the petitioner. In this case injustice has been done with the petitioner. It appears that he was prosecuted simply because the number of persons who died and number of persons suffered injuries was quite good. 10. In view of above discussion the revision petition is allowed. Accused-petitioner is acquitted from the charges under which was convicted. He is in custody and shall be released if not required in any other case.Revision allowed. *******