IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.548 of 2003 Date of Decision 11.03.2010 Baldev Singh ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Jasjeet Singh, Advocate, for Mr.H.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 27.02.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Muktsar, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 24.03.2001, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304-A IPC The allegations against the petitioner are that on 19.08.1998, he while driving the vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No.PB-05D-9625, rashly and negligently, took it on the wrong side and struck against the scooter of Nachhattar Singh, as a result of which he died. Case was registered against him and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He was charged, tried, and ultimately, convicted and sentenced Criminal Revision No.548 of 2003 -2- accordingly. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less perversity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction stand affirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to pendency of proceedings for such a long time in various Courts. He has already undergone some period of the substantive sentence. Under these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence,which is reduced to six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.03.2010 mamta-II