Criminal Revision No.1246 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1246 of 2005 Date of Decision: 25.02.2011 Amit Chawla ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated July 12th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Fatehgarh Sahib, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 3rd, 2002 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby, petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on May 24th, 1999 at about 12.00 noon, an accident took place near Judicial Courts Complex, Fatehgarh Sahib between car No.HR-05-D-6333 driven by the petitioner and Malkiat Singh, who was on foot. Malkiat Singh received multiple injuries. He was brought to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib by Gurdial Singh-complainant (PW-4). Malkiat Singh died on the same day. It was alleged by Gurdial Singh that at the time of accident, the petitioner was driving the car at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. First Information Report (Exhibit Criminal Revision No.1246 of 2005 2 .. P8) was registered against the petitioner in Police Station – Sirhid. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not challenge the judgment of conviction and only prays for reduction of sentence. The grounds pleaded are that, (i). the accident did not take place solely on account of negligence of the petitioner, rather it was due to contributory negligence of the deceased also as he, without noticing the car, turned immediately towards wrong side; (ii). the petitioner was in his 20s at the time of accident; (iii). he is the only bread winner of his family comprising of wife and two children aged about 8 years and 4 months respectively; iv). he has suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 12 years and (v). he has already undergone sentence of 1 month and 4 days. 4. To support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon (i) Sudh Ram vs. State of Punjab 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 550; (ii) Girdhari Lal Vs. State of Punjab 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 988 and (iii). Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 428. 5. In Sudh Ram and Girdhari Lal's case (supra), the accused convicted under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC had undergone actual sentence of 2-1/2 months and 2 months respectively and this Court released them on probation. 6. In Avtar Singh's case (supra), the accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The sentence was reduced to the undergone period, that is, 10 days, by this Court. 7. The authorities cited are of direct import as similar grounds were taken into consideration. 8. The numerous grounds taken cumulatively are mitigating circumstance so, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but is inclined to reduce the sentence. It is further of the opinion that ends of justice shall be met if the petitioner is sentenced Criminal Revision No.1246 of 2005 3 .. to the period already undergone by him and orders accordingly. 9. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 25.02.2011 som