THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRL.REVISION CASE NO.114 OF 2006 DT.11.06.2010 Between: G.Vargeese ……………..Petitioner Vs. State of A.P., represented by its P.P. ………………Respondent. O R D E R: The revision arises out of the conviction imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari in C.C.No.38 of 1998 dated 09.10.2003, which was subsequently confirmed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi in Crl.Appeal No.413 of 2003, dated 19.01.2006. The offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Sections 304-A & 337 of I.P.C. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The accused was working as driver in Tanker Lorry bearing No.TN-21-D-5499. On 17.01.1998 at about 7.30 a.m., at Nagari-Tiruthani Road near Nathamkandriga, Maruthi Mills turning, the petitioner/accused driver drove the lorry from Tiruthani towards Nagari side, in a rash and negligent manner without taking due care and caution and hit the two cyclists who were coming in an opposite direction, due to which both S.Velu and S.Velayudam received severe bleeding injuries on their head and other injuries. Among them, S.Velu died on the spot. Another injured S.Velayudam was shifted to Government Hospital, Puttur for treatment. On the report given by PW-1, the police registered the case in Cr.No.15 of 1998 for the offence under Sections 304 (A) and 337 of I.P.C. On 17.01.1998 during the course of investigation, inquest was held over the dead body of deceased S.Velu and the same was sent to postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Puttur. Thereafter, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Puttur, inspected the crime vehicle and issued a report opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects and later, on 19.01.1998 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagari arrested the accused and sent him for remand and thereafter he filed charge sheet into the court. The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time, confined his argument only in connection with the question of sentence. The trial court and the appellate court convicted the accused and sentenced the petitioner/accused for a period of one year and also imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1998 and the petitioner is aged about 38 years and he is the only bread winner of the family and he has also to look after three of his daughters, who are school going children. Taking into consideration the above submission and on perusal of the records, this court is of the view that since the occurrence happened in the year 1998, i.e., nearly twelve years have been elapsed, sentencing a person to imprisonment may not be necessary and in order to meet the ends of justice, some fine can be imposed against the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial court in C.C.No.38 of 1998, which was confirmed by the appellate court in Crl.A.413 of 2003 is hereby confirmed. As far as the sentence is concerned, the same is modified as follows: Sentence of imprisonment is set aside and the petitioner/accused is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as fine within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above modification in sentence, the criminal revision case is disposed of. ______________ RAJA ELANGO J., Dt.11.06.2010 tjs