SB: Honble Shri Justice R.L. Jr ’ hanwa APPELLANT The Stat of MP. (No CG.) e w w: Versus RESPONDENT Shabbir Ad hme JUDGMENT P0$t for judgment o ff/ R.L. Jhawar J“£1-:/\ /%.2009 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR Cr. App. No. 424/ 1990 n x7 072%)? r ga / J G HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ Cir. App. No. 424/ 1990 S: E HO’ NBLE SHRI JUSICE T R. L. JHANWAR Appearance: Shn' D.K. Gwalre, Govemment Advocate for the State / appellant. Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, counsel for the respondent J U D G M E N T (Delivered on)? 07.2009) R.L.,hanwa.r, J J . This Criminal Appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. as been directed against the sentence on the ground of inadequacy awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilasimr in case No. 68! 1990, by which, the respondent has been sentenced under Section 279/337 of the IPC to pay a fine of RS200] —, under Section 304—A of the IPC to pay fine Rs.800/’ — and in default of payment of fine to undergo SJ. for 3 months. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 8.1.1990, at about 3.00 pm. , respOndent—Shabbir Ahmed was driving a Truck in rash and negligent manner, bearing No.BIN—6701 on the main road \ lrx . h APPELLANT Th6 State of MVP. (Now CG.) u - Versus RESPONDENT Shabbir Ahmed s/ o Shaikh Abdul £ Gani, ag€d 34 years, R] 0 Madhopur Madhumalat, Thana — Tukoliya, District Motihari (Bihar) ’7 Cr, App.424/199o at Baradwar, and hit a Luna, on which, three pawns were going, 9 as a re$u1t of which, all of them received gn'evous mjurie‘s. Dheeraj Yadav and Vijay Yadav succumbed to the mjun'es on the spot amt} Rocp Yadav sustained simple injures. Behalf Nah'ci was lodged by one Nirbhav on 8‘1.1§90 in the Po1ice Station~Baradwar, on the basis of which, F.I,R, was registered axid the matter was investigated. After comyle’rion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Cofir’t of J.M.F.C., Bilaspur on 19.1.1990 under summaiy procedure. The harried Magistrate explained particulars of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 &~804—A of the IPC to the respondent: The respondent pleaded guilty. Relying on his admission, the learned Magistrate sentenced him as above. i l have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court, reported in 1981STPL (LE) 10731 SC (Aitha Chander Rao Vs, State of Andhra Pradesh) and 1994 STPMLE! 19770 SC(A.P.Raju Vs. State of Orissa) submitted that the case of the respondent is similar to those eases and the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence should be dismissed. Hon’ble the Apex Court in both the cases has granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1988. Both the cases were under sections 804A of the IPC. InQOne of the cases Hon’ble the Apex Cotut, taking into consideration the long period of passing of the incident and also taking into consideration that the appellant was on bail for last more than 8 years has granted beneht of Section 360 Cr.P.C. Here in the instant case the incident took place on 8.1.1990 and a long period of ahopt 18 years has already been passed after a.) conviction by the trial Magistrate on admission of the respondent. y« 9. 3 Cr. App.424/1990 Both the dec€ased persons and injured were going on a Luna and it is well known to everybody that the vehicle Luna is not, made for carxying three personé. Having coneidered all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case, where order of enhancement of sentence should be passed; therefore, the appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ‘4‘ ”Ed/— ‘ t 1R.L.Jha“War i 1 JuigL-;a t e: a /I/::; a