IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1404 of 2005 Date of Decision 26.11.2010 Harjinder Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate and Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 21.07.2005, vide which the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment dated 14.11.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, Camp Court at Dasuya, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 14.09.1995, he while driving a vehicle Swaraj Mazada rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn, struck against the bicycle of Piara Singh and caused injuries to him. Ultimately, he succumbed to his injuries. Consequently, the petitioner was challaned, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Criminal Revision No.1404 of 2005 -2- Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel seeks some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or any manifest error apparent on the record, has been pointed out which may result into any miscarriage of justice or cause any prejudice to the petitioner, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to the pendency of proceedings in the Courts since then. He has already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence. Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, for compliance. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority as per rule. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 26.11.2010 mamta-II