IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1512 of 2003 Date of Decision: 20.09.2010 Tek Chand ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Rattu, DAG, Haryana. ****** A.N.JINDAL, J. (ORAL) Custody certificate taken on record. Notice was issued at the time of admission of the appeal only on the quantum of sentence. While arguing on the quantum of sentence, learned counsel has urged that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal vide judgment dated 07.10.1996 (Ex. D-1) had observed Issue No.1, while deciding Issue Nos.1 & 2 of the petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, that it was the deceased, who was responsible for causing the accident and had decided Issue Nos.1 & 2 against the claimants and in favour of the present petitioner. Consequently, vide judgment dated 07.10.1996 (Ex.D-1), the claim petition was also dismissed. Anyway, this judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal does not amount to res judicata but the same could be taken as a mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence. Even Criminal Revision No.1512 of 2003 -2- otherwise, the accused is 45 years old. It has been reported that the accused has already undergone 2 months and 8 days of the actual sentence and has already deposited the fine. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification of sentence to that of already undergone without alteration in the sentence of fine. September 20, 2010 (A.N.Jindal) Gagan Judge