IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.227 of 2010 Date of decision : November 9, 2010 Munshi Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Revision petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 8th April, 2010 of learned Sessions Court, whereby, accepting the appeal of State of Himachal Pradesh for enhancement of punishment, revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and fine of `1,000/- for offence, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, sentence of three months imprisonment and fine of `500/- for offence, under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentence of 15 days imprisonment for each of the offences, under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, though the trial Court had imposed the sentence of fine only, in respect of all the aforesaid offences. 2. Admitted facts are that the revision petitioner was engaged as a driver on Bus No.HP-17-4377. On 18th July, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 1999 at 7.30 p.m., when he was driving the said bus, near Community Health Centre, Shillai, an accident took place, in which 21 passengers on board the bus died, while several others, including the revision petitioner himself, sustained grievous and simple injuries. Cause of accident was alleged to be rash or negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner. 3. Police, after investigating the matter, filed report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who, after trying the revision petitioner, for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, held him guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months for offence, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, three imprisonment for offence, under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. No sentence was awarded for the other two offences, under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Aforesaid order of conviction and sentence was passed by the trial Magistrate on 21st May, 2004. 4. Revision petitioner filed an appeal, challenging both his conviction and sentence. Appellate Court (Court of Sessions) accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Judicial Magistrate, with the direction that the sentence was required to be passed, in respect of offences, under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code also. 5. Trial Court, after remand, sentenced the revision petitioner to pay fine of `1,000/- for offence, under Section …3… 279 of the Indian Penal Code, fine of `500/- for offence, under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, fine of `1,000/- for offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, and fine of `7,000/- for offence, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. State filed appeal, seeking enhancement of punishment. No appeal was filed by the revision petitioner, challenging his conviction and sentence. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal of the State and enhanced the sentence, as aforesaid. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State. 8. Revision petitioner-accused having not filed any appeal, challenging his conviction by the trial Magistrate, he cannot be heard to assail the conviction, at this stage of revision. As a matter of fact, revision petitioner has challenged the order of learned Sessions Court only with regard to the enhancement of sentence. 9. In the accident, 21 persons died and many more sustained injuries, both grievous and simple. Revision petitioner himself also sustained grievous hurt. Finding is there that the cause of accident was rash or negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner. 10. Looking to the fact that a large number of persons lost their lives and several others sustained grievous as also simple injuries in the accident, which occurred due to rash or …4… negligent driving of the bus by the revision petitioner, I find no ground for interfering with the judgment of the Sessions Court enhancing the sentence. Rather, I am of the view that more severe punishment was required to be imposed. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, revision petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending applications stand disposed of, having become infructuous. November 9, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J