1 S.B.CR. REVISION PETITION NO. 368/1994 Mohd. Shafi @ Aziz Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER :: 3rd February, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, for the applicant(s)-petitioner. Mr. O.P. Singaria, PP for the State. This revision petition as per provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred to assail validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 25.10.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No.24/1992, affirming conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Cr. Original Case No.173/1979. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that on 4.6.1979 at about 11.00 a.m., a truck overturned at Palota to Aaspur road near Lasara Talab, consequent to which, Smt. Sushila and Shri Moti Singh, a newly wedded couple, and one Fateh Singh and a child Itli over-travelling in the truck concerned died. The petitioner being a driver of the truck was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. The trial court after adjudicating the entire matter held the petitioner guilty for the offences and accordingly, he was 2 convicted. The trial court awarded the sentence of three months' simple imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 279 IPC and six months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 IPC. The sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment was also awarded for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and two years' rigorous imprisonment was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and also maintained the sentence awarded. While pressing this revision petition, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court failed to appreciate that there was no rash and negligence on part of the present petitioner and the truck overturned because of certain defects in newly constructed road. It is also asserted that the incident is of the year 1979 and now after a lapse of a period of more than 30 years, it shall not be appropriate to send the appellant behind the bars to undergo remaining sentence. I have examined the orders impugned and also record of the case. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that all the witnesses in most unambiguous terms stated that the truck was coming with high speed and it is because of a sudden braking the truck stood overturned. The trial court after appreciating whatever evidence available on record gave a definite finding, 3 which does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. As such, I do not find any ground with the orders impugned. However, looking to the fact that the incident relates to the year 1979 and now age of the petitioner is more than 60 years, I do not consider it appropriate to send him behind the bars to undergo remaining sentence. Instead of that, I am of the view that substitution of the sentence awarded by adequate fine shall serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, sentence awarded is modified by the term already undergone i.e. from 25.10.1994 to 8.11.1994 with a fine of Rs.15,000/- which is required to be deposited with the trial court on or before 30.6.2010. In the event of failure to deposit the fine, the petitioner is required to undergo remaining substantive sentence. The revision petition stands disposed of. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. rm/