IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 30 of 2004. Date of Decision: 20.9.2010. _______________________________________________ Inder Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner : Mr. I.S.Narwal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. P. K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence under Section 338 IPC passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan as affirmed by the learned appellate Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 4.4.1997, complainant PW-10 ASI Pushp Lata lodged a complaint to the effect that she alongwith constable Dalip was regulating traffic at the Mall Road, Solan. At around 3.00 p.m. Maruti Van bearing registration No.HP-14-2781 driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, hit her and struck against Rehari of PW-1 Bashir Ahamad and Nazir Ahamad. Both of them were taken to the hospital. ASI Pushp Lata also sustained injuries in this accident. Injured were examined by Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 PW-7 Dr. J.P. Kaushik, PW-6 Dr. S. Sood and PW-11 Dr. H.C. Gupta. Two of the injured Bashir Ahamad and Nazir Ahamad were examined by PW-11 Dr. H.C. Gupta who proved MLC Ext.PW-11/A and Ext.PW- 11/B. Both of them have been certified to have suffered simple injuries. Ext.PW-6/A is the MLC of PW-10 Pushp Lata. Three injuries were found on her body. Injury No.1 in the nature of abrasion etc. was found to be simple. Injuries No. 2 and 3 the report by Dr. J.P. Kaushik PW-7 states that he has fracture on the right patella. Ext.PW-8/A is the report prepared by the Mechanic, which shows that the brakes of the vehicle were functioning properly and that according to information the accident occurred because the driver was unable to control the vehicle. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that no offence much less offence under Section 338 IPC is disclosed from the evidence on record. In particular he refers to the evidence of PW-2 Dalip Singh to urge that there was no rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. I am unable to persuade myself that a dispassionate view of the evidence leads to this conclusion. The evidence that three injured persons Bashir Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad and Pusp Lata is clear on the point that the traffic was being controlled at the point where the accident occurred that is to say one part of the road was being tarred and there was only one way traffic. From the scrutiny of Ext.P-1 to P-3 photographs of the site of the accident, it appears that it was crowded place where the accident has taken place. 5. In cases of rash and negligent driving, it is settled principle, inter alia, that wherever there is a crowd, extra care and 3 caution is required by the driver in driving. Even if it is accepted that the injures on Bashir Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad which could have been caused by merely brushing against the vehicle the injury caused to PW-10 Pusp Lata cannot be sustained more especially the fracture sustained by her on the right leg. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the two courts below. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be released on probation. This submission cannot be accepted as rash and negligent driving has become rampant and causing danger to life and limb of law abiding citizens. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case that the incident took place in the year 1997, the sentence and imprisonment is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the trial court within three months from today. Out of this, sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be disbursed to ASI Pushp Lata and Rs.2,500/- each to Bashir Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad. It is clarified that in case of non deposit of this compensation money, the sentence of imprisonment shall be executed. A further direction is issued to the respondent State to ensure that the petitioner is granted licence only after clearing mandatory requirements of law under the Motor Vehicles Act. The revision is disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 20, 2010 (VT)