SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1999, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1724 of 1998. D/d. 26.2.1999.

State of A.P. - Appellant

Versus

Rajagopala Rao - Respondent

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A - Revision - Non speaking order - Bus driver convicted under Section 304A in connection with an accident which resulted in the death of one person - Concurrent findings by courts below - High Court in exercise of its revisional power upset the concurrent findings of the courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed.

[Para 4]

ORDER

B.N. Kirpal, J. - Special leave granted.

2. The respondent was a driver of an RTC bus. It met with an accident which resulted in the death of one person.

3. The respondent was prosecuted and convicted by the Magistrate under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, reduced the sentence to three months. A revision petition was filed in the High Court and the High Court allowed the same by observing as follows:

"I perused the entire evidence available on record and also the judgments of the lower courts. There is no acceptable evidence to indicate that the petitioner-accused was responsible for causing the accident and that he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently.

I do not find any ground to convict the accused basing on the little evidence available. Therefore the criminal revision case is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts are set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offence with which he is charged."

4. The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment.

5. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, restore Criminal Revision Case No. 692 of 1995 and direct the High Court to dispose of the same in accordance with law by a reasoned order.

6. No costs.

Appeal allowed.