JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sutradhar and Ms. A. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent. 2. This revision petition preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr PC is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. G.R. 48 of 1999 convicting the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and in default to SI for one month for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and in default to SI for one month for offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 53(3) of 2001 dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment dated 31.8.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. G.R. 48 of 1999. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the O.C. of Amtali RS. at 11.05 a.m. on 16.1.1999 received a telephonic information at the police station to the effect that a road traffic accident took place at Sekerkote, Daroga Bari, 8 k.m. away from the P.S. Immediately, the O.C. along with staff rushed to the spot and learnt from the people gathered there that a speeding jeep bearing registration Mo. TRT-5028 dashed against an auto rickshaw at 11 a.m. causing serious injuries to the passengers of the jeep and those of the auto rickshaw, the front portion of which was damaged. The jeep, after dashing the auto rickshaw capsized and fell down into a nearby pond. Both the vehicles were found at the place of occurrence and by that time one Laxman Bhowmik, who was the driver of the auto rickshaw, filed a complaint with Shri Pranab Sengupta, O.C., Amtali P.S. , which was treated as FIR. In the FIR it is alleged that the informant was carrying a passenger namely Subhash Shil with his calf in the auto rickshaw to Bishalgarh. On way the informant stopped his vehicle at the place of occurrence for tieing the calf with a rope. In the FIR it is alleged that the informant was carrying a passenger namely Subhash Shil with his calf in the auto rickshaw to Bishalgarh. On way the informant stopped his vehicle at the place of occurrence for tieing the calf with a rope. At that time one Agartala bound speeding jeep bearing Registration No. TRT 5028 appeared and dashed against his vehicle and the said jeep capsized and fell down into a nearby pond. As a result, the passengers of the jeep, the first informant and the passenger of his vehicle namely Subhash Shil received fatal injuries. The frontal portion of the auto rickshaw was damaged. The complainant Laxman Bhowmik, the driver of the auto rickshaw, was sent to the P.S. for registration of the case. He also received injury and he was hospitalized. Meanwhile the O.C. of the P.S. visited the place of occurrence and seized the offending jeep and the auto rickshaw. He drew the hand-sketched map of the place of occurrence along with the index thereof and recorded the statements of the material witnesses. By that time, he received the information from hospital that the injured Subhash Shil succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. At the instruction of Shri Sengupta, SI Shri Benu Lal Kar went to G.B. Hospital and prepared the inquest report. The case was registered as Amtali P.S. case No. 08 of 1999 under Sections 279/338/427 of IPC. After completion of the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused Munna Ghosh for offence punishable under Sections 279/338/427 and 304-A of IPC. On having the charges read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and desired to stand the trial. 4. The prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. The defence adduced no evidence in support of the defence. The learned trial Court on the basis of materials available and the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner/accused as stated above. 5. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, it has failed to prove that the petitioner/accused was driving the offending jeep in a high speed and/or he was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. 5. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, it has failed to prove that the petitioner/accused was driving the offending jeep in a high speed and/or he was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The evidence of PW1, Sri Laxman Bhowmik, no doubt speaks about coming of the offending jeep in a high speed but he has not spelled out the degree of the speed. Similarly, the PW 11, Sri Subhas Pal gave evidence to the effect that the jeep was in an abnormal speed but he also did not speak about the degree of the speed of the offending vehicle. According to Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, the other offending vehicle, namely the auto rickshaw was standing/parking on the right side of the road which is evident from the evidence of PW 3, Sri Mihir Bhowmik, who deposed that, "The auto rickshaw was standing on the right side. It was its right side." Besides, there is evidence to the effect that Subhash Shil who was in the auto rickshaw was tieing his calf inside the auto rickshaw which was parking on the right hand side of the road. 6. The further submission of Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel is that the place where the accident took place is situated in the rural area, outside Agartala Town. The prosecution has not brought on record what was the prescribed limit for the vehicle plying on the road where the incident took place. There is also no evidence, as stated earlier, about the speed in which the offending jeep was plying before the accident took place. In this regard Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel placed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 , wherein it is, amongst other, held that merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself and none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution who gave any indication, even approximately as to what they meant by 'high speed" which is a relative term. It was held that it was for the prosecution to bring on record materials to establish as to what it meant by 'high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed/upheld the order of acquittal passed by the High Court inasmuch as the prosecution failed to prove the case of negligence, rashness and the high speed brought against the accused. 7. Mr. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P. submits that the evidence of PW 11, Sri Sub-has Pal clearly proved that the jeep was in an abnormal speed. From his evidence it is also found that some of the passengers requested the driver to reduce the speed. That apart, the petitioner/accused, in the course of his examination under Section 313 of Cr PC admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident, in high speed. The prosecution has been successful in proving its case of negligence, rash and negligent driving in high speed by the driver of the offending jeep and as such the learned trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay fine as indicated in the impugned judgment. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The entire case is rested on the question as to whether the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle/jeep in high speed before the accident in question. Although allegation has been made and some evidence have been adduced to the effect that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in high speed, there is nothing on record atleast in the evidence of PWs that there was any speed limit prescribed for plying the vehicle in the particular area where the accident took place. Nor was there any evidence that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in such high speed beyond the prescribed limit for the aforesaid area. The speed limit is prescribed by the local authorities concerned as per the place and situation of the area taking into consideration the population, number of traffic etc. and as such the meaning of high speed may differ from place to place. The speed limit is prescribed by the local authorities concerned as per the place and situation of the area taking into consideration the population, number of traffic etc. and as such the meaning of high speed may differ from place to place. Unless such speed limit for a particular place for plying vehicles in a particular area brought on record and the speed in which the offending vehicle was driven by the accused, no Court can come to a definite conclusion that the alleged offending vehicle was driven in a high speed or abnormally high speed. The high speed, therefore, is a relative term and it was the duty of the prosecution to bring on record the materials to establish as to what it meant by high speed in the place where the alleged occurrence took place. In this regard, it would be appropriate to quote para 4 of the aforesaid cited case below: 4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case. 9. Having gone through the evidence on record, it is found that the other offending vehicle namely the auto rickshaw was parking on the right side of the road with a passenger carrying a calf. The offending auto rickshaw was also wrong in parking the vehicle on a wrong side and it can be easily presumed that the accident could have been avoided had the auto rickshaw was not parked on the wrong side. Without considering the other aspects of the matter, I find that on the basis of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case, this revision petition can be disposed of. The aforesaid discussion leads to a conclusion that the prosecution could not bring sufficient materials to the effect that the offending vehicle namely the jeep was driven in high speed and it was not sufficient to record conviction and sentence against the petitioner/accused as has been done by the learned trial Court. The charge against the petitioner/accused, in my considered view, could not be proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the impugned judgment dated 31.8.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. G.R. 48 of 1999 convicting the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and in default to SI for one month for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and in default to SI for one month for offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 53(3) of 2001 dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment dated 31.8.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. G.R. 48 of 1999 is liable to be interfered with and accordingly the same are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges framed against him. 10. This petition stands allowed. Petition allowed