Criminal Revision No. 2336 of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2336 of 2007 Date of decision: January 16, 2008 Basant Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar , Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent. Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate for the complainant RAJESH BINDAL, J. The accused has filed present revision petition before this Court against his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively with a fine of Rs. 200/-. The present proceedings arise out of an FIR No. 76 dated October 22, 1999 registered under Section 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station, Nihal Singh Wala. In the accident, on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley by the petitioner, Sher Singh died. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga vide its judgment dated November 29, 2005 directed the petitioner to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. In appeal also before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, petitioner failed. At the time of issue of notice of motion, the only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that parties have reached a compromise and he undertook to bring the complainant before this Court to prove that factum. Criminal Revision No. 2336 of 2007 -2- *** The submission is that once the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant has been amicably settled, even the conviction and sentence of the petitioner can be set aside. He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ram Lal & another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1999 (1) C.L.R. 374 and Khursheed and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 495. In the alternative, he submits that even if conviction of the petitioner is upheld as the petitioner is already in custody since November 3, 2007, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate has put in appearance for the complainant. He does not dispute the factum that dispute between the parties has been compromised and they have settled their differences. Keeping in view the fact that the conviction of the petitioner is on account of his alleged negligent driving of the tractor trolley and unfortunate death of a person in the accident, which was not on account of any deliberate act on the part of the petitioner, the parties having been compromised the matter, in my opinion, interest of justice will be served in case the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, I accept the revision only to the extent of quantum of sentence. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is directed to be reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner is directed to be released from the jail forthwith. The petition is disposed of accordingly. January 16, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge