IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.2956 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2011 PAPPU SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. NK Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This revision petition has been filed in challenge to judgment of conviction dated 13.7.2009, recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 279/304-A, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of ` 1,000/- (in default, simple imprisonment for 30 days) for commission of offence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of ` 500/- (in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days) for commission of offence under Section 279, Indian Penal Code. 2 The petitioner carried an appeal, which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 25.9.2010, rendered by Sessions Criminal Revision No.2956 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Judge, Faridkot. 3 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner was the driver of the offending bus. 4 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 In para-11 of the judgment of the lower appellate court, it has been specifically recorded that PW-1 Jarnail Singh, a passenger travelling in the bus, who was sitting on the side of the driver, saw the offending bus, while overtaking a tractor trolley, going on the wrong side and hitting the scooter of the deceased. The said witness has categorically identified the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert this piece of evidence. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court that any piece of evidence, which was material, however, has not been considered by the courts below. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show misreading of any piece of evidence, which has caused prejudice to the case of the petitioner. 7 In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. 8 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leniency and release of the petitioner on probation. 9 I find that the sentence awarded is one year. Since one year's rigorous imprisonment is commensurate with the manner in which the offence has been committed, I find no Criminal Revision No.2956 of 2010 (O&M) 3 reason to modify the order of sentence. 10 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 13, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?