ORDER : 1. This revision application is preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order and judgment dated 24th August, 2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2004, dismissing the appeal of the present applicant and confirming the order and judgment dated 13th August, 2004 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan, rendered in Criminal Case No. 966 of 2001. 2. Briefly to state the facts, the applicant-accused was alleged to have injured two children of the complainant by driving his auto rickshaw in careless and negligent manner on 17th March, 2000 on Malakpura Road, Patan. The applicant was driving his own auto rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ 2 X 4922 on the fateful day. A complaint in that regard was filed before the Patan City Police Station, being Ist CR No. 63 of 2001. Pursuant to investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the police and after the trial having been conducted in accordance with law, the present applicant has been held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code and was also visited with fine under all these provisions by order and judgment dated 13th August, 2004. 3. This order and judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan, of conviction and fine dated 13th August, 2004 was challenged before the learned Sessions Court, Patan in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2004. Having heard both the sides at length, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan, after discussing in detail the evidences and material placed before him, confirmed the order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan. The said impugned order and judgment is challenged by the applicant before this Court by way of the present revision application. 4. It is the say of Mr. Mehul Rathod, learned advocate, appearing for the applicant that the accident took place on account of auto rickshaw having been overturned and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the applicant, much less, mens rea to commit any offence. He further submitted that as both the children were playing on the road, the applicant had to apply sudden breaks which resulted into the auto rickshaw being overturned. He further submitted that as both the children were playing on the road, the applicant had to apply sudden breaks which resulted into the auto rickshaw being overturned. Learned advocate pointed out inconsistencies in the evidences of some of the witnesses who have been relied upon essentially by the prosecution, and urged this Court to give benefit to the applicant on the basis thereof. It is alleged that the complainant and the witnesses are farmers having agricultural farms and therefore, he could tutor those witnesses. That play of the children in the middle of the road by no stretch of imagination of learned advocate for the applicant can be said to have been proved. He strenuously argued before this Court that the learned trial court committed serious error in believing the complainant and the said error has been multiplied by the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Learned advocate urged the Court that there are two Motor Accident Claim Petitions being MACP Nos. 110 of 2003 and 111 of 2003 [old MACP Nos. 662 of 2001 and 663 of 2001] pending and as auto rickshaw has already been insured with the Insurance Company, the victims are duly protected. The applicant also showed his willingness to pay further amount of compensation to the victims but urged the Court to consider the imprisonment undergone as sufficient, more particularly because the applicant is said to be under severe psychological depression. Jail report of the applicant has also been called which suggests that the applicant has undergone 43 days of imprisonment. 5. Affidavit of the applicant is also brought on record stating therein the details of the motor accident claim petitions and the fact of payment of interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- on 14th July, 2004. Copy of the Insurance Policy has also been brought on record to indicate the valid insurance of the auto rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ 2 X 4922. 6. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the respondent-State has vehemently submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts of both the courts below and there is a very limited scope for this Court to interfere with the confirmation of the order of sentence and fine. He also submitted to the Court that both the courts below have elaborately dealt with the evidence leaving no scope of error. He also submitted to the Court that both the courts below have elaborately dealt with the evidence leaving no scope of error. He pointed out from the material on the record that not only has the negligence and reckless driving on the part of the applicant resulted into causing serious injuries to both the children, but there is damage to his own auto rickshaw, which itself is indicative of excessive speed and negligence. He urged the Court that there are more deaths on account of accidents than due to crimes and therefore, this aspect needs to be viewed very seriously and, therefore, no leniency should be shown by the Court in dealing with the present revision application. 7. Needless to mention at this stage the scope of revision in the wake of concurrent findings of two courts below is strictly limited. If one briefly examines the case of the prosecution in light of the prosecution charges levelled against the present applicant and the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciation made of them, by the courts during the trial, it can be safely concluded that the present revision does not deserve to be allowed for the following reasons. 8. It appears that the prosecution has been successful in proving the incident dated 17th March, 2007 by the applicant while he was driving auto rickshaw no. GJ 2 X 4922 on Malakpura Road, Patan. There is positive and categorical evidence of the complainant Raman Khoda. Both the children of the complainant suffered simple and grave injuries and oral and documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution in that regard are conclusive as far as injuries to the children on account of the accident caused by the vehicle is concerned. The road was not uneven nor was narrow at the point of accident. The auto rickshaw overturned on account of its speed and in the process the applicant's act inflicted injuries on the children of the complainant. The complainant knew the applicant from the beginning. The prosecution could also adduce evidence about the speed of the vehicle when this accident took place. Substantiating medical papers were also brought on the record and duly proved. Say of the applicant with regard to tutoring of the witnesses has no basis. The complainant knew the applicant from the beginning. The prosecution could also adduce evidence about the speed of the vehicle when this accident took place. Substantiating medical papers were also brought on the record and duly proved. Say of the applicant with regard to tutoring of the witnesses has no basis. What can be deduced from the order and judgments of both the courts below is that on extensive appreciation of the facts and applying law to these proved facts, both the courts below have arrived at a finding that there was carelessness and negligence on the part of the applicant and thereby imposed sentence of imprisonment and fine both, on the applicant. 9. This Court has carefully examined the submissions of the learned advocate of the applicant, but nowhere it could be pointed out as to how any perversity or illegality is visible on the record. In light of the aforementioned discussion, the scope of the revision as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hydru v. State of Kerala, reported in [2004] 13 SCC 374, is very narrow and limited. Mere possibility of two views can never permit interference unless illegality or incorrectness or impropriety is pointed out. 10. On the aspect of punishment, it was argued fervently before this Court that the applicant is suffering from severe depression although no proof to that effect is on record. However, considering the fact that the incident is very old and protracted period has lapsed in the litigation, the order of sentence can be modified as requested for by the learned advocate for the applicant to some extent in the given set of facts and considering the nature of offence. The applicant has already paid fine as was imposed on him and he is punished under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months and as the total period undergone is of 43 days, the same should be construed as sufficient. Resultantly, punishment under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code stands modified to that extent. Remaining order is not disturbed. 11. Thus, from the cumulative appreciation of the facts and material presented before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order and judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which confirmed the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 12. Remaining order is not disturbed. 11. Thus, from the cumulative appreciation of the facts and material presented before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order and judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which confirmed the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 12. Resultantly, this revision is allowed partially. As a parting note, mention needs to be made of the fact that learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has agreed to pay an amount of compensation, which could have been granted invoking powers under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. while finalising the criminal case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or thereafter by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Apex Court in the case of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 insisted on exercise of this power of Criminal Court. However, as the same had not been exercised and when specific submission had been made by the learned advocate for and on behalf of the applicant, the applicant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only] by way of compensation to the victims. 13. Accordingly, the revision application stands disposed of. Rule stands confirmed to the extent mentioned hereinabove. Revision partly allowed.