Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2005(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2005(O&M) Decided on : October 29, 2010 Surender Sharma ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.K.S.chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent – State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Accused – petitioner Surender Sharma (herein referred as `petitioner'), through the instant petition, has challenged the judgment dated 18.8.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 27.5.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul convicting and sentencing him as under:- U/s 279 & 337 IPC rigorous imprisonment for three months, on each count U/s 338 IPC rigorous imprisonment for Six months and fine of Rs.1000/- In brief, the facts are that on 22.12.2000 at about 11.30 AM, Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2005(O&M) [2] the complainant Charanjeet Singh was going towards Bus Stand Narnaul, in the meantime, a Jeep bearing Reg.No.HR-35-9230 being driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently and at a fast speed came and hit him, a a result of which he suffered injuries. The petitioner after making a halt for some time, drove away the same. The complainant was shifted to Government Hospital for treatment. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant, a case was registered and investigated. On submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Trial Court charged the petitioner accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined eight witnesses in all. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. At the very outset, without assailing the conviction recorded against him, the learned counsel for the petitioner has thrown himself to the mercy of the Court and prayed for some leniency. Even otherwise, records transpire that the courts below have returned a finding of fact regarding guilt of the petitioner on proper appreciation of the evidence. The impugned judgment also sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. As such, the conviction recorded by both the courts below is maintained. Now, coming to the sentence, the accident in question took place in the year 2000. The petitioner, has suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last about ten years. That apart, no bad Criminal Revision No.1520 of 2005(O&M) [3] antecedents of the petitioner have been brought on record, so as to dub him as habitual offender. He has also undergone about a month of the substantive sentence. Thus, taking a lenient view, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence that the petitioner is directed to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for a period of one year within which period he will continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for. This modification shall be subject to deposit of Rs.25,000/- by the petitioner towards compensation payable to the complainant - injured, within four months from today. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul for compliance. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE October 29, 2010 `gian'