IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2300 of 2009 Date of decision : November 03, 2009 Subhash ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. SS Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Pradeep Virk, DAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition by Subhash assailing his conviction and sentence by the courts below. The petitioner was tried under sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the averments that on 12.11.2002, the petitioner by driving Jeep No. HR- 46-A-5610 rashly and negligently caused accident as the Jeep over-turned and thereby some of occupants of the Jeep sustained injuries and one of the occupant of the Jeep died at the spot. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2008 convicted the petitioner under sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs 500/- under section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs 1500/- under section 304-A IPC. However, both substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide Criminal Revision No. 2300 of 2009 -2- judgment dated 5.8.2009. Feeling still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. Notice of motion in the revision petition was issued re: quantum of sentence only. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the occurrence took place almost seven years ago and the petitioner is not a previous convict. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for reduction in sentence. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel contending that rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by the petitioner took the life of a person besides causing injuries to some other persons. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment for offence under section 304-A IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment of two years to rigorous imprisonment of one year while maintaining sentence of fine for the said offence and also maintaining sentence for offence under section 279 IPC. It is ordered accordingly. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 03, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'