ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.10.1999 vide which the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC as well as the order dated 27.01.2003 passed by Special Judge (Communal Riots/Mansingh Court), Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 62/2001 whereby the court below has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the court below has based the conviction solely on the application filed by the petitioner vide which it is alleged that he pleaded guilty. It is contended that such application is not available on record and when the petitioner applied for a copy of the same, he has been informed that the application is not available on record and the application is also not entered in the court fee register. It is further contended that the application was not put to the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the conviction has been based solely on the said application. 3. It is further contended that from the site plan Ex.P-1, it is evident that the tractor was being driven on the left side of the road and the cyclist came from the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road, as a result of which, collusion took place. It is further contended that the investigation was not produced by the prosecution and the site plan being a material document and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross examine the Investigating Officer with relation to the site plan. It is further contended that the matter is of the year 1988, the petitioner faced trial till 1999 and on 14.10.1999, his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to plead guilty within 12 days of recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. It is also contended that the order sheet dated 26.10.1999 do not bear the signature of the accused therefore, in absence of the documents on record, the trial court has committed grave error in convicting the accused. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that there is concurrent finding by the court below relating to guilt of the accused, there are eyewitnesses to the incident. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that there is concurrent finding by the court below relating to guilt of the accused, there are eyewitnesses to the incident. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have also perused the impugned orders as well as record of the court below. 7. This is not disputed that the incident took place on 14.09.1988 and the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 14.10.1999. In site-plan, Ex.P-2, the tractor is shown to be going from Jaipur towards Ajmer and the cyclist is shown to be coming from Ajmer towards Jaipur. The incident has taken place in front of Police Station Sodala, Jaipur, the site plan does not depict as to what was the distance from the left side to spot "A" the site plan further do not depict as to what was the distance from the right side of spot "A." The Investigating Officer therefore, was an important witness, non-production of Investigating Officer has deprived the petitioner to put questions with regard to the site plan, PW-1 Chhitar Mal who was constable at Police Station Sodala in his cross examination has admitted that the tractor was running on the left side of the road which is the correct side. If the statement of PW-1 is to be believed and the tractor was driven on the left side of the road which is the side designated for the vehicle, it cannot be said that the petitioner was negligent. 8. The court below has placed reliance on the application said to be filed by the petitioner wherein he pleaded guilty, the same is not available on record and was not even put to the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. That being so, the conviction being based solely on application which is not available on record and for which, no question was put to the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the orders passed by the court below cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 9. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted for the offences charged.