JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar dated 30.6.2000 by which he upheld the conviction of the accused petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for offences under Sections 270 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code against. 2. I have heard learned Counsels for both the parties. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.12.1994, Hemraj reported at Police Station, Vijay Nagar vide Ex. P.9 that he was standing near the Shiv Temple at about 1.30 p.m. while Bhanwar Singh was standing by. It was Mahendra Nath who was coming towards tham. In the meantime, Bus No. RNZ-555 came with a high speed and dashed against Mahendra Nath. Mahendra Nath was crushed and died at the spot. The bus was being driven by the petitioner. The police registered a case under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted challan under these sections. Accused petitioner was tried by the learned Magistrate who convicted and sentenced him for both the offences but passed a composite order of sentence. On appeal, the same was maintained. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to convince that in this case the evidence led by the prosecution was that Mahendra Nath was sitting on the stairs of the temple and that Bhanwar Singh called him. Then Bhanwar Singh started and in the meantime, the bus came and dashed against Mahendra Nath. So, according to the learned Counsel when a pedestrian was passing the road carelessly, the accused petitioner cannot be held responsible for the occurrence. In the alternative he submitted that since the petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 30.6.2000 and more than six months have passed, the interest of justice requires that he may be sentenced to the period already undergone. 5. The settled law as found in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, JT 1999 (1) SC 456 : II (1999) SLT 83 : I (1999) CCR 92 (SC) , is that the High Court will not interfere in the evidence appreciated by the Magistrate and reappreciated by the learned Appellate Judge unless there is any glaring feature from which it may appear that really injustice has been done. However, I have scanned the evidence. I find from the site plan Ex. P.1 that the Shiv Temple is at a quite distance from the place where the bus was found standing after the incident occurred. According to PW 1 Bhanwar Singh, Mahendra Nath was sitting on the stairs of the Shiv Temple and when he called him, Mahendra Nath intended to start, the bus came at the place which was loaded with passengers. He has gone to the extent of saying that he had warned Mahendra Nath that the bus was coming. But since the driver was not having control over the bus, it dashed against Mahendra Nath. He has stated that the site place Ex. P.1 bears his signature. When the site plan was prepared, the bus was standing at a far off place from the Shiv Temple in front of the house of Brahm Singh and 'Bada' of Ram Kishan which are on the southern side of the temple. He was cross-examined at length but he maintained that the petitioner could not control the bus and dragged the deceased to the place where the bus is shown standing in the site plan. The identity of the driver was challenged in his cross-examination but he maintained that it was the accused and accused alone whom he knew and who was driving the vehicle. PW 6, Hemraj has stated that it was the accused petitioner who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and that the accident took place because of his rash and negligent driving. Investigating Officer, PW 8 Phule Khan investigated the matter, prepared the site plan. He reached the spot after the report was lodged and prepared different papers. The statement of accused petitioner recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code can also be read. He admitted that the road was narrow and that the speed of the vehicle is not more than 10 to 15 kms. per hour. 6. In view of this evidence, I do not feel that there is any glaring feature as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner by which it may be said that injustice has been done with the accused petitioner. 7. per hour. 6. In view of this evidence, I do not feel that there is any glaring feature as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner by which it may be said that injustice has been done with the accused petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited Mahadeo Hari Lore v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 221 , in which the facts were that a pedestrian suddenly crossed road without taking note of the approaching bus then it was observed that there is every possibility of his dashing against the bus without the driver becoming aware of it. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this ruling does not apply. 8. He then submitted that accused petitioner is in custody since 30.6.2000 and that he may be punished to the period already undergone. The Supreme Court has been seriously taking these cases and a reference may be made to State of Karnataka v. Krishna @ Raju, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 861 , in which fine of Rs. 250/- was passed by the High Court but the Supreme Court enhanced the sentence to six months. This judgment was followed in Amar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 Rajasthan Vidhi Patrika, page 317 and Safliya Safel Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan, S. B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 195/99, decided on 17.5.1999 at Jodhpur. The sentence passed against the petitioner appears to be proper and no interference is required. 9. Consequently, the, revision petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.Revision Petition dismissed. *******