IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.744 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 04, 2010 Satpal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279/337/338 and 427 IPC on the allegations that on 27.12.1995 at 3.30 P.M. he had driven a jeep in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which he endangered the life of Roop Chand and caused injuries to him, besides damaging his cycle. Vide judgment and order dated 9.2.2001, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda convicted him for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Sections 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 337 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 338 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous Criminal Revision No.744 of 2003 -2- imprisonment for 15 days and also sentenced to a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 427 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 28.3.2003 by maintaining his conviction and sentences. The petitioner then filed the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C., which was admitted on 14.7.2003 and he was ordered to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. However, he states that the accident in question had taken place on 27.12.1995 and ever since then the petitioner is facing the agony of criminal prosecution. When the petitioner was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was a first offender. The petitioner has already undergone a period of about four months in jail out of the maximum sentence of one year imposed upon him. The entire amount of fine has already been paid by him. Besides, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 14.12.1999 had awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the injured. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. Criminal Revision No.744 of 2003 -3- Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has stated that due to the accident in question, Roop Chand had received serious injuries as a result of which he was not able to talk, walk or sit. In fact, he had become bed ridden. He could not even come before the trial Court for deposing as a prosecution witness. A Local Commissioner was appointed to record his statement. The Local Commissioner reported that he was lying on the bed and unable to understand anything. Therefore, no case is made out for showing any leniency to the petitioner in the matter of sentence. It is a fact that the petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 14 years. He was taken into custody on 28.3.2003 upon dismissal of his appeal by the learned lower appellate Court and it was only on 14.7.2003, when the present revision was admitted, that the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. He has, thus, undergone a substantive sentence of about four months in jail. There is no material on the record that the petitioner was earlier involved in any such or similar criminal case. The petition filed by the injured for grant of compensation was allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by awarding him a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, so as to serve his remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that Criminal Revision No.744 of 2003 -4- already undergone by him. However, at the same time, the petitioner can be directed to pay a further amount of Rs.50,000/- to the injured as compensation. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279/337/338 and 427 IPC is maintained. However, substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. Sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause as directed by the Courts below is maintained. In addition, the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo the remaining substantive sentence as imposed upon him by the Courts below. The amount of Rs.50,000/-, on its deposit, be disbursed to the injured as compensation. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 04, 2010 JUDGE satish