IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1496 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: July 15, 2011 Rohtash .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, dated 5.2.2010 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 304-A, 337, 279 IPC. 2. The maximum sentence awarded is one and a half year. It has been recorded in the order of sentence that the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and therefore, does not deserve to be given a lesser sentence. Crl. Revision No.1496 of 2011 [2] 3. Petitioner carried an appeal that has been dismissed vide judgment dated 8.7.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence (dated 5.2.2010) have been maintained. 4. The only contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner has not been identified as the person who drove the offending vehicle. 5. In Para 6 of the judgment (dated 8.7.2011) rendered by the lower appellate Court, it has been recorded that PW-1 Parkash (complainant) has proved the sold negligence on the part of the petitioner. The said witness identified the petitioner in Court and categorically deposed that the driver struck against Chinta (deceased) who succumbed to her injuries. In post accident conduct, the petitioner fled from the spot after causing accident. PW-4, Savita and PW-5, Seema also sustained injuries in the same incident. The said two witnesses have identified the petitioner and imputed negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the accident. 6. Faced with such findings, learned counsel has not been able to raise any issue that warrants consideration under revision jurisdiction. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 15, 2011 JUDGE Crl. Revision No.1496 of 2011 [3] avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?