1. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The petition is barred by 18 days. The petitioner has submitted an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner had been on bail and had no notice of the hearing of the petition on 19-2-1990. The petitioner leant about it only after his arrest on 15-3-1990. It took some time to prepare the petition from the jail. In view of the statement of the petitioner, the delay is condoned.
2. Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. The facts, in brief, are that on 26-5-1978 at about 6 p.m. The petitioner while driving of wagon in rash and negligent way hit a boy Rafaqat Ali aged 11 years. The boy succumbed to injuries and died on 27-5-1978. The petitioner was tried by a Magistrate with section 30 powers who found him guilty and convicted him under section 304-A, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo S.I. For two years. The appeal filed against his conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court also concurred with the finding of the Courts below.
4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was driving the wagon on the day of incident and it is also an admitted fact that the incident had occurred as a result of which Rafaqat Ali had died. The witnesses who has appeared in support of the prosecution allegation had stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at a high speed in a city which was crowded with public. The impact was so heavy that the boy was thrown away and sustained injuries. According to the learned High Court the boy was hit while he was on the Katcha path adjoining the road. The learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed this fact and submitted that the incident had occurred on the main road and the reason was that the conductor kept the door open therefore the petitioner was not responsible for the act. This fact has not been admitted by any Court. The Motor Vehicles Inspector in his statement stated that the brakes of the wagon were out of order. This fact itself establishes the negligence of the petitioner who was driving the vehicle with unworking brakes. The witnesses who had seen the accident had implicated the petitioner. There was rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner which has been established. All the Courts have come to the same conclusion. This is not a fit case for reappraisal of evidence. The concurrent finding does not require interference by this Court. The petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.