JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:-- 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19-05-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 55(4) of 2002 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment dated 05-11-2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. G.R. 176 of 2001 was upheld whereby he convicted the present petitioner of having committed offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months for committing each of the offences. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that the accused-petitioner was driving Maruti car bearing No. TR-01-3356. It is alleged that he drove the car in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused injuries to various persons and hence, the charges were levelled against the accused. Both the Courts below had found the accused guilty. Hence, this appeal. 3. This Court in revisional proceedings does not normally interfere in finding of fact. However, at the insistence of Sri Somik Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the entire evidence. 4. PW-1, Smti. Archana Das (Sarkar) was travelling in Maruti car bearing No. TR-01-3356. According to her, the car was going downhill and at Amtali it tried to overtake a bus which was standing on one side and passengers were getting down from the bus and thereby the car went on the wrong side and collided head on with a commander jeep which was coming from the opposite direction. The witness suffered injuries and she has stated that the accident took place due to the fault of the driver of the Maruti car. She has also stated that if the driver of the Maruti car had waited for a couple of seconds behind the standing bus, the accident could have been avoided. 5. PW-4, Pranesh Ranjan Podder, was a person travelling in the commander jeep and according to him, the Maruti car bearing No. TR-01-3356 came from the opposite side on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the jeep. 5. PW-4, Pranesh Ranjan Podder, was a person travelling in the commander jeep and according to him, the Maruti car bearing No. TR-01-3356 came from the opposite side on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the jeep. PW-5, Suman Adhikari, is also passenger of the commander jeep and his version is also that a Maruti car which was overtaking a bus came on the wrong side of the road and collided with the jeep. He has stated that the jeep was at a moderate speed. PW-6, Jayanta Deb, is also an eye witness, but he has stated that he does not know how the accident occurred. PW-7, Tapan Debnath, is the driver of the commander jeep. According to him, one Canter vehicle had stopped and passengers were alighting from it. The Maruti car overtook this Canter vehicle and hit the jeep. The driver has stated that he was on the left side of the road. He has also identified his signatures on the complaint. PW-8, Litan Karmakar, was also passenger of the commander jeep and his version is identical to the others. PW-10, Sanjit Banik, is the owner of the Maruti vehicle and he has stated that the accused Nikhil Banik was his driver and that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. 6. This is the entire relevant evidence available before this Court and there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the accident took place due to the fault of the driver of the Maruti car. From the evidence, it is apparent that he did not even wait for a few seconds behind the bus from which passengers were alighting but tried to overtake the bus. In this process, he came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the jeep which was coming from the opposite side and was on the extreme left side. The version of these witnesses is supported by the hand-sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer who appeared in the witness box. This action of the accused in trying to overtake a standing vehicle without ascertaining whether a vehicle was coming from the opposite side is a rash and negligent act within the meaning of section 279 of IPC. He has rightly been convicted. I find no reason to interfere in the judgments of both the Courts below. 7. This action of the accused in trying to overtake a standing vehicle without ascertaining whether a vehicle was coming from the opposite side is a rash and negligent act within the meaning of section 279 of IPC. He has rightly been convicted. I find no reason to interfere in the judgments of both the Courts below. 7. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. 8. The bail bonds of the petitioner stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the sentence imposed on him. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. 10. Send down the lower court records forthwith.