IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2399 of 2002 Date of decision: 8 th April, 2010 Rajinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Rajinder Singh son of Harchand Singh. He was tried in a complaint preferred by Dalbara Singh respondent No.1. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana found the petitioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2000 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same and upheld the conviction and maintained sentence of the petitioner. Hence the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No.2399 of 2002 The case set out by the complainant is that on 9 th May, 1994, he along with his sister’s son Bhagwan Singh, was going to village Hamjheri to leave Bhagwan Singh. When they descended from the bridge of Bhakhra Canal, they spotted a jeep coming from the side of village Ghangga rashly and negligently. The jeep had hit a cyclist. Due to the accident the cyclist fell down and the complainant made an attempt to stop the jeep but the driver of the jeep Rajinder Singh son of Harchand Singh, who was previously known to the complainant, ran away from the spot. At the time of accident, the petitioner was accompanied by his brother Karnail Singh and a lady. The registration number of the jeep was DDV-8575. The name of the cyclist was Randhir Singh, who died at the spot and he was real brother of the complainant. The complainant made a statement to the police, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. After registration of the FIR, at the instance of the police, talks for compromise were initiated, but since the accused were related to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, therefore, no challan was filed and hence the complaint was instituted. Mr.Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has stated that both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of Dalbara Singh PW-4 and Bhagwan Singh PW-5. Therefore, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel has very fairly stated that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the month of May 1994. A period of about 16 years is going to elapse. The petitioner is in the corridors of the Courts and he has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any such offence before or after the initiation of the present case and he is now aged more 2 Criminal Revision No.2399 of 2002 than 65 years. Learned counsel has further stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of the deceased in monetary terms, so that some solace could be provided. Taking into consideration the age, antecedents, protracted trial and the fact that the petitioner is willing to compensate the family of the deceased in monetary terms, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to payment of a fine of Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine, so deposited, shall be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Randhir Singh. The trial Court shall call upon the accused petitioner to deposit the fine. The trial Court shall also afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the fine. In case the fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. With the modification in sentence ordered above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 8, 2010 rps 3