IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.718 of 2002 Date of decision: 22 nd March, 2010 Amrik Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Amrik Singh son of Nand Singh. He was named as accused in case FIR No.47 dated 16.07.1996 registered at Police Station Banur under Sections 279/304-A IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Rajpura vide its judgment and order dated 6 th January, 2001 found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court has upheld the conviction, maintained the sentence and dismissed the appeal. Criminal Revision No.718 of 2002 In the present case, FIR was lodged on the basis of statement made by Harbans Lal, wherein he stated that on 15 th July, 1996, in the evening his father Sohan Lal was going to his house on his bicycle from Banur city. At about 8.00 p.m. one scooter bearing registration number CHP-9026 came at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the cyclist (father of the complainant). The cyclist received many injuries. The scooter and the bicycle were damaged. The petitioner was driver of the scooter. The father of the complainant was brought to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries. Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has very fairly contended that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner, as finding of fact has been recorded by both the courts below. He has further stated that except to point out discrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the testimony of witnesses, there is nothing in his arsenal to dislodge the findings recorded by both the courts below. Counsel has further stated that he is conscious that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation or re-appraisal of the evidence. However, he has stated that in the present case, the accident had taken place on 15 th July, 1996. About 14 years are going to elapse and the petitioner has undergone three months and four days of actual sentence out of the sentence of one year awarded to him. Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and he has not committed any such offence before or after registration of the present case. Counsel has prayed that the sentence awarded upon the petitioner be reduced to already undergone and complainant party be adequately compensated by awarding a fine as compensation. 2 Criminal Revision No.718 of 2002 I find merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone, subject to payment of fine of Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine shall be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Sohan Lal. Trial Court shall call upon the accused petitioner to deposit the fine. Trial Court shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the fine. In case the fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. With these modification in the sentence ordered above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 22, 2010 rps 3