IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1684 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 20, 2011 Satnam Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 14.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-accused (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 4.5.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of `1000/- under Section 304- A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. At the very out set, without assailing the findings of conviction, it has been submitted that the petitioner has already undergone two months of the substantive sentence and is the sole bread winner of his family, therefore some leniency may be shown to him on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that two persons died and one injured due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2006; the petitioner has Crl. Revision No. 1684 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then; he has already undergone two months of the substantive sentence. Though, the accused does not deserve any leniency on the quantum of sentence, yet, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of things if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to 1- ½ years without any alteration in the sentence of fine. September 20, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge