Crl.Revision No.1433 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1433 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 06, 2009 Zakir Hussain .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Rathee, AAG, Haryana. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Zakir Hussain petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh vide judgment dated 28.8.2000 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC and one year under Section 304-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the said judgment, he filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.09.2001 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were affirmed. Against that judgment, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Crl.Revision No.1433 of 2001 -2- In this case, the alleged accident had taken place on 8.6.1998 with the bus, which was being driven by the petitioner in which six persons died. As per the prosecution case, the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses, including PW1-Hussaina and PW3-Smt.Akbari, who were injured in the said accident. The trial Court after taking into consideration the material available on the record and the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, convicted the accused and sentenced him, as indicated above. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below as well as the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to challenge the judgment of conviction on merits. However, on the question of sentence, learned counsel argued that out of one year sentence, the petitioner had already undergone actual sentence of 7 months and 26 days. He further submitted that since January, 2002 the petitioner is on bail. He has already suffered protracted trial for the last 10 years. He further stated that the petitioner has a big family, and he is the only bread earner of his family. He further stated that the petitioner is also not a previous convict and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. In these facts and circumstances, even learned counsel for the respondent-State has not strongly objected if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the Crl.Revision No.1433 of 2001 -3- parties on the quantum of sentence, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage when he has already undergone more than seven months of actual sentence and is on bail since January, 2002. I have been informed that the petitioner has undergone 7 months and 26 days of actual sentence and if the remissions availed by the petitioner are to be added, then he has to go inside the jail only for near- about two months. Thus, keeping in view the said fact and the facts that he has already suffered protracted trial for the last 10 years; he has to support a big family, as he is the only bread earner in the family; and he is also not a previous convict, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence, the criminal revision is dismissed. February 06, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE