https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183299 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. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jun 2016 11:54:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183299 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183299