ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 160(2) of Railways Act, 1989. He is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The petitioner was the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25/F-1473. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.08.2006 at about 11.15 p.m., the petitioner was driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit at the railway crossing gate at KM.No.350-5-6 in between Chalageri and Ranebennur Railway Station and damaged the gate. The petitioner was tried on the said accusation before the Prl. Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW.1 was the gateman at the relevant point of time; PW.2 was the Section Engineer, who drew up the spot panchanama and seized the bus; PW.3 was the Railway Station Master. He has corroborated the statement of PW.1 that on 03.08.2006 he received the information from PW.1 that gate No.217 was closed for public vehicles and the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA25/F1473 dashed to the said gate; PW.4 was the pancha witness to the spot mahazar, who has deposed about the drawing of the panchanama and seizure of the bus; PW.5 is the RPF Inspector; PW.6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who has deposed that in the incident even the KSRTC bus was damaged, its head light was broken and in this regard he issued the M.V. report at Ex.P.11; PW.7 is the Sub-Inspector of RPF, who deposed about the information received by him regarding the incident and he visited the spot at 6.00 a.m. and found that the gate was damaged and it was not possible to close the gate. 4. Based on the above evidence, the learned Magistrate was of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the accused for the above offence. The accused carried the matter in appeal and by the impugned order dated 04.03.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.18/2011 the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur) has dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.726/2006. 5. The accused carried the matter in appeal and by the impugned order dated 04.03.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.18/2011 the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur) has dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.726/2006. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments and the grounds urged in the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the very same contentions which were urged before the Courts below. He contends that the prosecution had not examined any independent witnesses. The sole eyewitness examined by the prosecution, namely, PW.1 has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not personally witness the incident and the voluntary statement relied on by the prosecution Ex.P.10 is not admissible in law. 7. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the above contentions are considered by the Courts below and on assigning proper reasons, have rejected same. The trial Court has observed that the incident took place at about 11.15 p.m. on 03.08.2006 and in the said circumstances it was idle to expect any independent witness. It has proceeded on the basis that there is no proposition of law that the evidence of a police witness or a lineman who was on duty cannot be believed. The trial Court has observed that PW.1 was a natural witness and his evidence is corroborated by the other witnesses who have confirmed the fact that soon after the incident, the information was passed on the Superior Officers, and at the earliest instance the registration number of the involved bus and the details of the damage caused to the gate were furnished to the higher officials. This evidence lends intrinsic corroboration to the testimony of PW.1. Thus, the trial Court has assigned cogent and acceptable reasons for accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has substantiated the findings with the legal evidence available on record. The said reasons are affirmed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the Courts below. 8. Thus, the trial Court has assigned cogent and acceptable reasons for accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has substantiated the findings with the legal evidence available on record. The said reasons are affirmed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the Courts below. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error of jurisdiction or patent error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The scope and ambit of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is limited. The Hon’ble supreme Court of India in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chanderand another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , in para No.12, has held that: “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.” 9. Even on the aspect of sentence, I find that both the Courts below have taken a very lenient view. Section 160(2) of Railways Act, 1989 prescribes punishment up to five years. However, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the Courts below have awarded a minimum sentence of six months which in the fact situation of the case cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to admit the petition. Section 160(2) of Railways Act, 1989 prescribes punishment up to five years. However, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the Courts below have awarded a minimum sentence of six months which in the fact situation of the case cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to admit the petition. As a result, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the above order, I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2018 do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.