CRR No.1402 of 2011(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRR No.1402 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision : 15.9.2011 Sukhwinder Singh ........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr. H.S.Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This criminal revision is directed against judgment rendered by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, dated 24.5.2010 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine ` 200/-(in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days), under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two months, under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine ` 200/- (in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days) and under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner carried an appeal that has been dismissed vide the other impugned judgment dated 6.6.2011. CRR No.1402 of 2011(O & M) -2- As per the prosecution case, the truck driven by the petitioner hit the motor cycle from the backside. Paramjit Kaur fell down and was run over by the truck. Arm of the husband-complainant-Baldev Singh PW-3 was fractured. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to show to the Court any piece of evidence that has not been considered by the Courts below so as to cause manifest injustice. Learned counsel further has not been able to show any piece of evidence that has been perversely read and considered. The accident rather has been admitted by the petitioner. Facts and circumstances noticed above, clearly show that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving as he was driving the vehicle that was coming from the backside of the vehicle that was hit. In view of the above, no ground for interference in the revisional jurisdiction is made out. This criminal revision is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 15.9.2011 akm