CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1748 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 20, 2011 Sikandar Pal Singh @ Bhura .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The negligence in this case would apparently writ large as the child was hit by scooter driven by the petitioner, leading to his death. Submission that FIR was against an unknown and unidentified person, would not mean much. Two witnesses claimed that they got obtained the knowledge about the name and address of the petitioner at the spot itself and they had disclosed the same to the police. As per PW1, the name was disclosed by Sewadar of the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1748 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: School, who was standing outside the school premises. On this basis, it can not be urged that the petitioner was not identified as the one who was driving the scooter. Counsel for the petitioner then pleads for leniency. Upon conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 304-A IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer one year RI coupled with fine of `500/-, which, as per the counsel has been paid. Considering the fact that the petitioner is of young age, case for showing some leniency is made out. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to a period of nine months RI for conviction of offence under Section 304-A IPC. The revision otherwise is dismissed. December 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE