IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2480 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 02, 2011 Ajay ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing judgment dated 05.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC by virtue of which the accused-revisionist was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC; and RI for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Crl. Revision No.2480 of 2011 Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.07.2009, an accident took place between motorcycle driven by the deceased and tractor trolley driven by the revisionist – accused. A case was registered against the accused-petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and during trial, PW2 Bhim Singh and PW3 Bir Singh have categorically deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor No. PB-51-1135 by the accused-revisionist in which the deceased suffered fatal injuries. There is no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of these two witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has not specifically denied the factum of accident nor he has taken the stand that he was not driving the tractor in question at the relevant time. Dr. Satish Sulekh, PW5 has proved the post mortem report conducted on the dead body of Bhupender and deposed that the injuries caused to Bhupender deceased were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause his death in normal course of nature. Both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and there is no ground to interfere with the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. 2 Crl. Revision No.2480 of 2011 Present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. November 02, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3