Revisional jurisdiction in criminal cases is limited: concurrent findings on rash and negligent driving were left undisturbed.

Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be used as a second appeal; interference with concurrent findings is justified only for manifest error, perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice. Applying that standard, the Court found no basis to disturb the findings that the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving, and the conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was not liable to be interfered with. The High Court was therefore right in declining to re-appreciate the evidence in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in declining to interfere in revision with the concurrent findings convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground of rash and negligent driving.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and is not to be exercised as if it were appellate jurisdiction. Interference with concurrent findings is warranted only where there is a manifest error, perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice. On the evidence accepted by the courts below, the finding that the accident occurred due to the appellant's rash and negligent driving was not shown to be erroneous or perverse.

Conclusion: The High Court was right in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence in revision and the conviction was not liable to be interfered with.

---