ORDER: Revision petitioner/appellant/accused viz., Ramamurthy, who has been convicted under Secs.279, 337 (two counts), 338 (four counts) and 304-A, I.P.C. and sentenced respectively to fine of Rs.300 under Sec.279, Rs.400 on each count under Sec.337, Rs.700 on each count under Sec.338 and three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000 under Sec.304-A, I.P.C. by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, has preferred this criminal revision case. 2. Grounds alleged in support of this revision are to the effect that the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.Ws.2 to 6 has not been properly appreciated and that there is no proof for rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, driver for the accident and the accident occurred unexpectedly and that the petitioner/accused is entitlted to get the benefit of doubt. 3. The entire oral and documentary evidence available for the prosecution has been scrutinized in depth by me and from that it is clear that the petitioner/accused alone has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner that too when there was ditches on the side of the road and a motorcycle was coming from the opposite direction and that if really the petitioner had been careful and steady, he would have avoided the accident. The trial Court and the appellate Court also have elaborately discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and come to the conclusion that the petitioner alone was responsible for the accident and due to such accident, one passenger has died and some more persons have sustained simple and grievous injuries. 4.Consequently, there is no question of reappreciation of evidence in this revision and there is no apparent illegality or irregularity or perversity on the parts of the Courts below, it. need not be set right by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court as contemplated under Secs.397 and 401, Crl.P.C. On the other hand, there is reliable and believable evidence for the prosecution to come to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner alone the accident occurred leading to death of one passenger and causing injuries to other passengers. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence available for the prosectuion altogether and there is no reason that the petitioner/accused should be charged by the police after investigation falsely and likewise, there is no reason for the prosecution witnesses to give false evidence against the accused. 5. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence available for the prosectuion altogether and there is no reason that the petitioner/accused should be charged by the police after investigation falsely and likewise, there is no reason for the prosecution witnesses to give false evidence against the accused. 5. Taking into consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that t he revision has no merits and there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the judgment and sentence rendered by the appellate Court. Therefore, the criminal revision case is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the accused to enable him to undergo the remaining period of sentence.