C.R.R. No.503 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.R. No.503 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Yudh Kulbhushan ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kurukshetra convicting the petitioner under Sections 279/337 IPC and 304-A IPC and against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra modifying/affirming the conviction order. C.R.R. No.503 of 2003 (O&M) -2- The allegations are that the petitioner was the bus conductor and when the complainant and her son were trying to board the bus the driver started the bus in a rash and negligent manner without waiting for the whistle from the petitioner. The complainant and her son fell down on the ground and rear wheel of the bus crossed over her son who died on the spot and the complainant was injured. The learned trial Court convicted both the accused i.e. the driver and the conductor under Sections 279/337 IPC and 304-A but the learned Appellate Court has accepted the appeal of the conductor qua Section 279 IPC and acquitted him of the charge under Section 279 IPC but maintained his conviction under Sections 337 and 304A IPC on the ground that even though the driver had started the bus without getting any signal from the conductor, he should have immediately stopped the bus by blowing the whistle. In my opinion, even conviction of the petitioner under Sections 337 and 304A IPC for not getting the bus stopped by blowing the whistle is not maintainable in law and thus he cannot be held guilty for the said offences. As has been mentioned by the complainant that the driver started the bus at great speed, it is doubtful that the petitioner even had the time to blow the whistle in the split second between the starting of the bus and crushing of the son of the complainant. The present is not a case where the petitioner had blown the whistle C.R.R. No.503 of 2003 (O&M) -3- without ascertaining the fact that all the passengers had boarded the bus, but it is a case where the driver had started the bus without waiting for the signal of the conductor. I am, therefore, of the view that the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence imposed is not legally tenable. I, therefore, set aside the same, acquit the petitioner and allow the revision petition. The petitioner is on bail. Bail bond shall stand discharged. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 24, 2011 JUDGE ashish