IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No.. 29 of 2011. Date of Decision: 29.3.2011. _______________________________________________ Gopal Singh. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction by the two courts below under Sections 332, 353 and 506 I.P.C. The incident, out of which the revision petition arises, took place on 23.2.2005 when F.I.R. No. 93 of 2005 Ext.PW8/A was recorded on the complaint made by PW1 Bhag Singh, Conductor in the H.R.T.C. bus who was injured in the fracas. It was stated that he was on duty on that date along with driver PW3 Lal Chand. When the bus reached at bus-stand Kotli, the accused brought his Tata sumo vehicle in front of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 the bus and started calling out to the passengers asking them to come to Mandi in his taxi. The complainant objected that he cannot resort to this kind of practice whereupon, an altercation followed and the accused assaulted the complainant injuring him with fist blows. He was examined by PW6 Dr. Gopal Singh who certified in the M.L.C. Ext.PW6/A that the complainant had suffered four injuries which were later on opined to be simple in nature. On the evidence led before the learned trial Court, the petitioner was convicted of the offences as charged. The petitioner appealed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge re-considered the entire evidence on record and found no justification of the complaint resorting to violence. After examining the entire evidence on record, the petitioner was found guilty of the offence as charged. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that no independent witnesses were examined more especially as there were passengers sitting in the bus was rejected by the Court below holding that the evidence of the other witnesses could not be treated as a evidence of interested persons. The petitioner has now preferred the present revision. A number of submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be convicted of the offences as charged. Primarily, the submission made is that the petitioner was not the aggressor and that when the conductor alighted from the bus and asked the petitioner herein not to interfere and 3 stopped the petitioner from calling out the passengers, he was acting in excess of what his duties demanded. Learned counsel also submits that the evidence is full of inherent contradictions. I cannot persuade myself to hold that the findings arrived at by the learned Court below are in any manner vitiated for perversity of a non consideration of material facts. What has to be considered is that this kind of behaviour in public resorted to by the petitioner who is a taxi driver, cannot be tolerated. He cannot be allowed to establish his own sovereignty on the road and to act in the manner in which he has done in the name of free trade/enterprise. The submission that the complainant was not acting in discharge of public duties, is also rejected as being devoid of any merit and un-substantiated by law. What I find from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that the offence has been described in detail does not call for any interference. This revision petition is, therefore, rejected. On the question of sentencing, what I find is that a period of more than six years has elapsed. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a young person. In these circumstances, I direct that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside subject to the condition that he shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi within a period of two months from today. On deposit of this amount, it shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. In case of non- 4 deposit, the petitioner shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as imposed by the courts below. Needless to say if any amount has already been deposited, the same shall be adjusted. Copy dasti. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. March 29, 2011(R)