JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. The instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397, 401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2006 affirming the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 1, Una, dated 13/19.1.2006, whereby the accused is sentenced to suffer three months’ simple imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 337 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 338 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304A IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/- And in case of default of the fine, the convict has to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences will run concurrently. 2. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that that the complaint Diwan Chand was working as Baildar in HPPWD Haroli. On 28.9.1998 he was working near Salwana Bhatta. After doing duty, he was returning home by taking lift in the scooter of Shri Suresh Kumar who was driving Scooter HP-20-9530 towards Haroli. When scooterist-Suresh Kumar at around 6 PM reached near Badhera village, one bus, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner, came from Haroli side and dashed against the scooter as a result whereof scooterist and pillion rider i.e. complainant Diwan Singh fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter, they were taken to the District Hospital Una from where Suresh Kumar was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for further treatment. But eventually, he succumbed to the injuries en-route to PGI. Police recorded the statement of the complainant Diwan Singh under Section 154 CrPC on the basis of which FIR came to be registered vide Ext.PW14/A in Police Station Una, HP. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was produced before the court of law and the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found accused guilty of the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and accordingly he was sentenced as has been mentioned above. 5. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found accused guilty of the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and accordingly he was sentenced as has been mentioned above. 5. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by learned trial court, accused-petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.PC in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Una, however, same was dismissed and the judgment of learned trial court was upheld and hence this revision petition before this Court. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. Shri N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate, contended before this Court that judgments passed by both the courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based on correct appreciation of evidence on record as well as on facts or on law. He further submitted that learned courts below while convicting the accused have gravely erred in believing the contradictory and discrepant statements of the alleged eye witnesses. As per him, close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution does not inspire confidence to conclude the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Mr. Thakur, during the arguments, invited the attention of this Court to statements of prosecution witnesses as well documents exhibited on record to persuade that it was scooter rider who was driving rashly and negligently and there was no fault of present petitioner-accused in causing alleged accident. Mr. Thakur strenuously argued that statement of injured/complaint, Diwan Chand being interested person could not be given much credence by the court because version given by him was in contradiction of alleged eye witness PW-2 Balraj Singh. 8. He also invited attention of this Court to the photographs and site plan which as per him could demonstrate innocence of the petitioner. He pointed out that site plan prepared by Investigating Officer nowhere reveals the true position existing on the spot but with a sole view to frame the petitioner, it was prepared in such a manner. As per submissions of Mr. Thakur, both the courts below have swayed with the fact the death has occurred and they have reached to the wrong conclusion that the rash and negligent driving was being done by the accused at the time of the accident. 9. To the contrary, Mr. As per submissions of Mr. Thakur, both the courts below have swayed with the fact the death has occurred and they have reached to the wrong conclusion that the rash and negligent driving was being done by the accused at the time of the accident. 9. To the contrary, Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State supported the judgments passed by both the courts below and made an attempt to persuade this Court by pointing towards the prosecution witnesses that judgments in question are based on correct appreciation of material available on record. He persistently contended that Section 397 CrPC provides this Court very limited power to re-appreciate the evidence. Apart from this, he emphasized that since one person has died in this occurrence which has been proved beyond reasonable doubt no interference of this Court is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Bus in question was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the petitioner herein-accused, therefore, no leniency can be shown by this Court and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Admittedly, while exercising power under Section 397 Cr.PC, this Court has very limited/little scope to re-examine/re-appreciate the evidence placed on record but in the instant case, where petitioner-accused has been convicted and sentenced, it would be apt in the interest of justice to critically examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by learned courts below are not perverse and same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 17 witnesses. 12. Complainant, PW-1 Diwan Singh, who was pillion rider with the deceased Suresh Kumar at the time of the accident, categorically stated that on 28.9.1998, after finishing work when he was coming back to his house on a scooter being driven by deceased Suresh Kumar, one bus came from Haroli side in a high speed and dashed against the scooter which was already on the Kacha portion of the road at that relevant time. As a result whereof, both of them sustained injuries and fell un-conscious. They were brought to the Hospital. He also stated that Suresh Kumar later on died. He also proved statement made by him Ext.PW1/A to the police. As a result whereof, both of them sustained injuries and fell un-conscious. They were brought to the Hospital. He also stated that Suresh Kumar later on died. He also proved statement made by him Ext.PW1/A to the police. He emphatically stated that accident in question took place with the Lovely Bus Service. In his cross-examination, he stated that ahead of Saloh bridge, there was a deep curve and they were negotiating the curve and thereafter, there was a 15 feet pucca road (gola). He specifically denied that the vehicle which comes from the front side is not visible from that point. Rather, he stated in cross-examination that when they were crossing the bridge, they saw a bus coming from front side at a distance of 100 meters. It is important to take note here that Diwan Chand PW-1 has categorically stated in his statement that the moment before the accident, scooter was being driven at the speed of a cycle and he had also seen the bus coming at a distance of 100 meters. Further gaze into the statement also suggests that scooter was driven on Kacha Road at the time of the accident. He denied the suggestion that deceased Suresh Kumar was driving scooter rashly and in high speed and he himself dashed against the bus. Though, PW-2 Balraj who had initially stated that accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of accused but later on he was declared hostile. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that, there was a curve at the place of occurrence. 13. PW3, Varinder Kumar is a witness to the recovery memos Ext.PW3/A and Ext.PW3/B vide which bus in question and the driving licence of the accused taken into possession by the police. 14. PW4, Vijay Singh also proved Ex.PW3/A vide which bus was taken into possession and he stated that bus belongs to his brother. 15. PW5, Sanjay Kumar, who had initially stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused, was declared hostile by the prosecution. 16. PW6, Jagdish Ram also proved memo Ext.PW6/A whereby documents of the scooter were also taken into possession. 17. PW7, Diwan Chand also proved Ext.PW7/A, whereby scooter along with one bag, shoes, pagri, helmet and one small glass were taken into possession by the police. 18. 16. PW6, Jagdish Ram also proved memo Ext.PW6/A whereby documents of the scooter were also taken into possession. 17. PW7, Diwan Chand also proved Ext.PW7/A, whereby scooter along with one bag, shoes, pagri, helmet and one small glass were taken into possession by the police. 18. PW8, Saroop Lal had mechanically examined the bus and scooter and placed on record mechanical reports Ext.PW8/A and Ext.PW8//B. 19. PW9, Naresh Kumar, photographer had clicked photographs Ext.P1 to Ext.P8. 20. PW10, Satish Kumar was person associated with the investigation and in his presence, police took into possession articles vide memo Ext.7/A. 21. PW11, Dr. V.K. Raizada had conducted the post mortem of Suresh Kumar and issued post mortem report Ext.PW11/A. 22. PW12, Om Parkash conducted the X-ray Ext.PW12/A of Diwan Chand. 23. PW13, Dr. Rajinder Angra medically examined Suresh Kumar and Diwan Chand and issued the MLCs, PW13/A and Ext.PW13/B. 24. PW14 Saroop Singh recorded the FIR Ext.PW14/A. 25. PW15 Chander Kant recorded the rapat Ext.PW15/A. 26. PW16 ASI Ashok Kumar was the Investigating Officer. As per him, incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. In his cross-examination, he has denied that he has shown the skid marks wrongly prepared by him. He has denied that he has wrongly shown the spot of accident in Ext.PW16/A though the occurrence took place on the other side. 27. PW17 SI Satish Kumar who had actually recorded the statement of Diwan Singh at the first instance which is Ext.PW1/A and sent the same for registration of the case. 28. After carefully going through the evidence brought on record, it clearly emerges that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. PW1 Diwan Chand who was pillion rider was eye-witness to the accident. He has clearly stated that bus came from the other side and dashed with the scooter when it was on kacha road as a result whereof they received injuries. Subsequently, unfortunately, scooterist Suresh Kumar died while he was being taken to PGI Chandigarh. If the cross-examination of PW1 conducted by the defence is carefully perused, it can be safely inferred that he struck to the statement which he either gave at the time of lodging his report Ext.PW1/A to the police at the time of accident or before court as PW1. If the cross-examination of PW1 conducted by the defence is carefully perused, it can be safely inferred that he struck to the statement which he either gave at the time of lodging his report Ext.PW1/A to the police at the time of accident or before court as PW1. He categorically stated that scooter was in speed of cycle, rather, spot map Ext.PW16/A, makes it clear that bus has gone to the extreme right side and dashed against the Scooter which clearly suggests that bus was being driven at that relevant time in a very high speed because had the bus been driven in slow speed at that time, the accident in question could have been avoided and a life could have been saved. This Court had occasion to see the photographs Exts.P1 to P8, which clearly portray the factum of bus being driven on the wrong side/extreme right side which strengthen the version of PW1 Diwan Chand, the pillion rider who was the first witness/person to the accident. Even the skid marks on the photographs clearly suggests that driver had applied the breaks but since bus was being driven in high speed, the same could not be controlled/stopped outrightly, hence, hit the scooter causing injuries to the person of PW1 and death of scooterist. Identity of the accused/driver/petitioner herein has already been proved on record as his Driving License was taken into custody by the police which was allegedly handed over voluntarily to the police while bus was being taken into possession by the police after accident. The defence taken by the accused is that bus was driven to extreme right in order to save the scooterist which does not appear to be correct in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances. 29. PW2 Balraj Singh though turned hostile but admittedly in the statement made under Section 161 Cr.PC, he had stated that at around 5:00-5:30PM when he was cutting maze crop in his field, he saw Lovely Bus being plied in a high speed and one scooter on the back seat of which one person was seated coming from Una. He stated that when they reached the curve, they turned their scooter towards left and Lovely bus which was going from Bathu to Una dashed with scooter as a result whereof both the persons fell down. He stated that when they reached the curve, they turned their scooter towards left and Lovely bus which was going from Bathu to Una dashed with scooter as a result whereof both the persons fell down. However, he turned hostile while making statement before the learned trial Court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he reached the spot after the accident. 30. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar, who had also initially in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC had stated that scooter was hit on wrong side by the bus turned hostile. 31. PW9 Naresh Kumar who had conducted the photographs Ext.P1 to Ext.P8 in his cross-examination established that he had clicked the photogaphs but he denied the suggestion that photographs were taken as per the instructions of police. PW11, Dr. V.K. Raizada, who had conducted the post mortem of Suresh Kumar issued report Ext.PW11/A even PW13 Dr. Rajinder Angra who medically examined Suresh Kumar proved MLCs Ext.PW13/A to Ext.PW13/B which suggest that injuries were caused due to the accident. PW16 ASI Ashok Kumar who after accident investigated the case and categorically stated that incident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. He categorically denied the suggestion that skid marks shown in the map were wrongly shown. He also denied that skid marks are not practically possible and also denied the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel with regard to where he has shown the accident on the spot Ext.PW16/A was wrongly shown and actually accident took place in other side of the road. 32. Admittedly, the present petitioner accused has not disputed the alleged accident. However, he has stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist not him. He during arguments specifically said that he turned the bus to extreme right with a view of save the scooterist who was on the wrong side. In cross-examination of the material witnesses, the pillion rider, PW-1 Diwan Singh, suggestion was given that one time the scooter was in kacha road and then he wrongly cut the scooter and after he went on the other side compelling the driver to take bus on the other side and as such accident took place due to his negligence, which was denied by him. Perusal of the spot map Ext.PW16/A clearly shows that bus was coming from Haroli side and scooter was coming from Sloh bridge side and in this map, curve has also been shown and the breadth of the road is also shown to be 15½ ft. and 3 ½ ft. of the one side and 5 feet on the other side are shown to be katcha road, meaning thereby, total breadth of the road is approximately 22 feet. It was also argued that since investigating officer in his statement said that in the spot map is given the width of the road 15 ft. which is contrary to the spot map but admittedly actual breadth of the road is about 15 feet but if the kacha road of both the sides are included, the total breadth of the road comes around 22 feet. Admittedly, as per statement of PW-16 Ashok Kumar, there is no locality near the place of accident and it was only complainant who was eye witness to the accident as he was the pillion rider at the relevant time. Since the accused petitioner himself handed over his Driving Licence to the police and as such there is no dispute with regard to his identity because, he has nowhere stated that he was ever compelled to confess that vehicle was being driven by him. Though, other alleged eye witnesses PW-2 and PW5 have turned hostile but their statements recorded under Section 161 at the first instance corroborates the version put forth by PW-1 that bus was being driven rashly and negligently in a high speed by accused. In their cross-examination by learned APP though they have denied that they actually saw the accident but admitted the accident. Moreover, perusal of Ext.PW16/A spot map leaves no scope for this court to conclude that accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of scooter. Photographs suggest that bus has come on extreme right side where it dashed with the scooter causing injury to scooterist deceased Suresh Kumar and PW1 Diwan Chand. 33. Mr. N.K. Thakur, stated that there is no eye witness to the aforesaid incident because PW-3 and PW5 have turned hostile and as such no credence can be given to the sole statement of PW1 Diwan Chand. But this Court does not find much force in the contention raised by Mr. 33. Mr. N.K. Thakur, stated that there is no eye witness to the aforesaid incident because PW-3 and PW5 have turned hostile and as such no credence can be given to the sole statement of PW1 Diwan Chand. But this Court does not find much force in the contention raised by Mr. Thakur solely for the reason that nobody could be better witness to the incident than PW1 who was admittedly pillion rider at the time of accident. He in his statement has categorically stated that at the time of incident scooter was being driven by Suresh Kumar on the speed of cycle and after seeing the bus from 100 fts, scooterist Suresh Kumar took it to extreme left on kacha road. Even in cross-examination of PW1, no suggestion whatsoever has been put to suggest that he had any motive to implicate the accused in the present case or he had any animosity or ill will towards the accused. Statement of PW1 coupled with other documentary evidence made available on record clearly suggest that bus in question was being plied rashly and negligently by the accused which has resulted in the death of scooterist and injuries to the PW1. Defence counsel has miserably failed to elicit anything in the cross-examination of PW1 and other material witnesses which could be suggestive of the fact that story put forth by the prosecution is not trustworthy and reliable. Admittedly, PW3 and PW5 have turned hostile but if their statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC are perused, it leaves no doubt in my mind that version given by the PW1 Diwan Chand is the correct version and can be taken as truth on its face value. Admittedly, in the present case, Suresh Kumar has died which duly stands proved with MLC Ext.PW13/A placed on record by the prosecution. During arguments, entire record of the case was perused in presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of accused and all the points raised in the grounds of revision petition urged orally by him were analyzed by this Court by referring to the statements recorded in the case as well as in the documentary evidence. But Shri N.K. Thakur could not point out something which could persuade this court to differ with the findings returned by the courts below. But Shri N.K. Thakur could not point out something which could persuade this court to differ with the findings returned by the courts below. Faced with the situation, Shri N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, submitted that keeping in view the fact that more than ten years have passed after passing of the judgment dated 19.1.2006 and during this period, petitioner-accused has suffered mental agony as appeal remained pending before court of learned Sessions Judge as well as High Court. He also stated that the petitioner-accused being first offender and having three children deserves to be given benefit of section 4 of Probation of offenders Act, 1958. However, same was highly objected by Shri Pankaj Negi learned Deputy Advocate General who submitted that no leniency can be shown in the case of petitioner especially in view of the fact that one person has died due to rash and negligent driving of the accused which stands duly proved on record. 34. In this regard, Mr. Thakur has placed reliance on judgment passed by the by this Hon’ble Court in Yudhbir Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh 1998 (1) S.L.J. 58, wherein it has been held as under: 9. The only mitigating circumstance that appears to be there is that the time gap of about six years between the date of occurrence as well as the date of decision of this revision petitioner. During this entire period sword of present case looming over the head of the petitioner was always there. That being so, this court is of the view that instead of sending the petitioner to jail as ordered by the courts below, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to keep peace and to be of good behavior for a period of one year from the date of execution of the bond before the court below as well as not to commit any such offence. In addition to being given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each to PWs Baldev Singh and Dilbagh Singh injured as compensation. In addition to being given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each to PWs Baldev Singh and Dilbagh Singh injured as compensation. Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons. 35. This Court cannot loose sight of the stern observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Saurabh Bakshi 2015 (5) SCC 182 . While dealing with the accident case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken serious view of reduction of sentences by the courts below. Their lordships in the aforesaid judgment in paras No. 1, 14, 24 and 25 have held as under; “1. Long back, an eminent thinker and author, Sophocles, had to say: “Law can never be enforced unless fear supports them.” Though the aforesaid statement was made centuries back, it has its pertinence, in a way, with the enormous vigour, in today’s society. It is the duty of every right thinking citizen to show veneration to law so that an orderly, civilized and peaceful society emerges. It has to be borne in mind that law is averse to any kind of chaos. It is totally intolerant of anarchy. If any one defies law, he has to face the wrath of law, depending on the concept of proportionality that the law recognizes. It can never be forgotten that the purpose of criminal law legislated by the competent legislatures, subject to judicial scrutiny within constitutionally established parameters, is to protect the collective interest and save every individual that forms a constituent of the collective from unwarranted hazards. It is sometimes said in an egocentric and uncivilised manner that law cannot bind the individual actions which are perceived as flaws by the large body of people, but, the truth is and has to be that when the law withstands the test of the constitutional scrutiny in a democracy, the individual notions are to be ignored. At times certain crimes assume more accent and gravity depending on the nature and impact of the crime on the society. No court should ignore the same being swayed by passion of mercy. At times certain crimes assume more accent and gravity depending on the nature and impact of the crime on the society. No court should ignore the same being swayed by passion of mercy. It is the obligation of the court to constantly remind itself that the right of the victim, and be it said, on certain occasions the person aggrieved as well as the society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. In this context one may recapitulate the saying of Justice Benjamin N. Cardizo “Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser too”. And, therefore, the requisite norm has to be the established principles laid down in precedents. It is neither to be guided by a sense of sentimentality nor to be governed by prejudices. 14. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Balwinder Singh (supra) wherein the High Court had allowed the revision and reduced the quantum of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Section 304A, 337, 279 of IPC by reducing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone that is 15 days. The court referred to the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and reproduced two paragraphs which we feel extremely necessary for reproduction:- (Balwinder Singh case, SCC pp. 186-87, para12) “12…1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic. 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” (Dalbir Singh case, SCC pp. 84-85 & 87, paras 1 &13)” 24. Needless to say, the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is “the crowning glory”, “the sovereign mistress” and “queen of virtue” as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is “the crowning glory”, “the sovereign mistress” and “queen of virtue” as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate court should be reduced to six months. 25. Before parting with the case we are compelled to observe that India has a disreputable record of road accidents. There is a nonchalant attitude among the drivers. They feel that they are the “Emperors of all they survey”. Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where the other people become their prey. The poor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and the civilized persons drive in constant fear but still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves as “larger than life”. In such obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the law-makers should scrutinize, relook and revisit the sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC, so with immense anguish.” 36. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality or sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order.” 37. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this court sees no reason and power to interfere with the judgments passed by the learned courts below and accordingly, judgment dated 19.7.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2006 affirming the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 1, Una, dated 13/19.1.2006 is upheld and revision petition preferred by the accused-petitioner herein is dismissed. Order dated 8.9.2008 passed by this Court, whereby sentence imposed by the court below was suspended is hereby vacated and the petitioner-accused is directed to surrender himself before the learned trial Court below to serve the sentence as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 1, Una, dated 13/19.1.2006 in Case No. 130-II-98. Pending applications, if any also stands disposed of.