ORDER
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
1. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 304-A/279/338 I.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months on each for the offences under Sections 279/338. I.P.C. vide order of conviction and sentence dated 3.6.1997. On appeal, the petitioner’s conviction under Sections 304-A/279/338 I.P.C. was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi but his sentence was reduced from one year to nine months vide judgment dated 22.5.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. A.No. 11/97.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 31.3.1986, the peti- tioner, while driving the bus No. DEP-7051, in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the scooter No. DBO-3598 as a result whereof Inder Raj (PW. 5) and his pillion rider Neeru Gulati (wife) were thrown away on the road causing severe injuries to both. The deceased Neeru Gulati came under the rare wheel of the offending bus and died on the spot. Immediately after the alleged incident, police came to the spot and recorded the statement of Inder Raj (PW. 5) on the basis of which the FIR No. 188/86 was registered at the Police Station Darya Ganj. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 304-A/279/338 IPC against the petitioner. On an assessment of the evidence adduced by the prosecu- tion, the learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above. On appeal, the petitioner’s conviction under Sections 304-A/279/338 IPC was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge but his sentence was reduced from one year to nine months rigorous imprisonment. Hence this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of conviction and sentence has not only resulted in manifest injustice meted out to the petitioner but the same is patently illegal inasmuch as there is not an iota of evidence on record to prove that on the day in question the petitioner caused the death of the deceased Neeru Gulati and injuries to Inder Raj (PW. 5) by doing any rash or negligent act. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner, while driving the bus No. DEP-7051 at a high speed, crushed the deceased Neeru Gulati to death besides causing severe injuries to Inder Raj (PW. 5). It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is one of the supervisory nature exercised by this Court for correcting miscarriage of justice and the revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court. (State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., ). Though the power to determine correctness of finding extends to a finding of fact, a court of revision would not ordinarily reassess evidence and interfere merely because view of the trial court as to evidence does not commend to itself. In other words, revision would not lie on the mere ground of miss-appreciation of evidence unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the revisional court which would other- wise tantamount to flagrant miscarriage of justice. (Satyendra Nath Dutta and Another Vs. Ram Narain, ). Keeping these well settled principles of law in view, I find that the learned Magistrate had made an elaborate analysis of evidence on record. His conclusions cannot be termed to be perverse and unreasonable, considering evidence of each material witness in its material particulars. I do not find any material evidence which has been overlooked. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned order of conviction does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
4. Coming to the question of sentence, learned counsel after stating that the petitioner has also faced the ordeal of trial for thirteen years and he has also lost his job, fervently pleaded for mercy. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner was nineteen years of age on the date of com- mission of the alleged offences. The alleged incident occurred on 31.3.1986 and the petitioner has undergone the proceedings for more than thirteen years. He has lost his job and undergone the sentence of imprisonment for the period from 22.5.1999 till 2.7.1999. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit case in which if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the sentence already undergone it would meet the ends of justice.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to sentence already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence, the revision is dismissed.