IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1795 of 2009 MD. MUSTAKIM KHAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 4.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2009 passed by Sri Bashistha Narayan Singh, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Aurangabad in Cr. Appeal no. 33/90/112/09, by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/3/90 passed in Trial Case No. 556/1990 (G.R.no. 1268/80) (arising out of Aurangabad P.S.Case No. 15(9)/80) by Sri Pradip Kumar Neogy, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aurangabad, by which petitioner was convicted under sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under section 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under section 304(A) IPC with a direction to serve out sentences concurrently. Detail of allegation made against the petitioner is not needed to be given as learned counsel for the petitioner prefers to press this revision on the point of sentence only. On that point his submission is that a single act of petitioner that of rash and negligent driving met an accident resulting into death of victim, has been said basis for accusation but for the same conviction is for offence under sections 279 and 304A IPC. This appears really a mistake committed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court but that can be minimized by awarding a single sentence. On that point, 2 submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that age of the petitioner was taken by the trial court for lenient view for which he should be released on due admonition even but maximum punishment is awarded for the offence under section 279 IPC and half of the offence under section 304A IPC. Now the petitioner surrendered in the court below before filing of this revision petition on 10.11.2009, so releasing him on admonition is of no avail. It is worthless to mention here that the petitioner was first offender. So the period undergone by him is observed sufficient towards his sentence, further clarifying that nature of offence is of no immoral turpitude. In the discussed suggested circumstance, this revision application is partly allowed on the point of sentence while the conviction of the petitioner passed by impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. The petitioner shall be released from custody in the aforesaid case, if not wanted in other case. Let this order be communicated through fax to the court below at the cost of the petitioner. A.I (Mandhata Singh, J.)