Criminal Revision No.390 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.390 of 2003 Date of Decision: 26 - 4 - 2011 Puran Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate and Mr.Deepak Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.Rajender Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed by complainant Puran Singh assailing the acquittal of accused-respondent No.2 Rajesh for offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court held respondent No.2-Rajesh guilty of rash and negligent driving and convicted him for offence under Sections 279/304-A IPC. Aggrieved against the same, he filed Criminal Appeal No.54-SB of 2003, which by a separate order of even date, has been decided and the conviction has been upheld and sentence has been reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A IPC. For the reasons stated in the judgment, passed in Criminal Criminal Revision No.390 of 2003 [2] Appeal No.54-SB of 2003, no ground is made out to cause interference in the present revision petition. In the present case, State has also opted not to file any appeal against acquittal for offence under Section 302 IPC. Certificate issued by the Advocate General, Haryana is part of the record, wherein it has been stated that District Magistrate, Sonepat has not sent any proposal for filing the appeal. This Court in Criminal Revision No.648 of 1996, titled as, `Mohinder Singh v. Mehar Singh and others', decided on 18.2.2008 has placed reliance upon D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196; Mahendra Partap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another, AIR 1968 SC 707; Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC 2145 to hold that in a revision against acquittal, High Court cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction lightly. In support of this contention, further reliance was placed upon Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh, (1986)3 SCC 444; Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 181; Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 1574 and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 2907. In view of the settled legal position, it cannot be said that there is any legal infirmity in the procedure or in conduct of the trial or any patent illegality. Thus, no interference is warranted. Order passed in Criminal Appeal No.54-SB of 2003, which has been disposed of today by a separate order, be read as a part of this order. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) April 26, 2011 JUDGE RC