IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1963 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2011 Amarjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Raj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for two years and also to pay a fine of `1,000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. The petitioner has now filed this revision to impugn the orders passed by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. Jagjit Singh PW-1 appeared to give evidence and deposed about the manner in which the accident took place. He along with the deceased was standing near the gate of main market when the Canter driven by the petitioner came and knocked the deceased down leading to his death. The petitioner had bolted from the place leaving the Canter there and subsequently was made to appear by the owner of the Canter as one who was driving the same. Even the eye witness has deposed while under cross-examination Criminal Revision No.1963 of 2011 (O&M) :2: that the petitioner had approached him for the purpose of compromise after 4-5 days of the accident. The conviction as such is based on evidence, which is available on record. The same would not call for any interference. Counsel, however, submits that maximum sentence has been awarded, though the evidence does not reveal anything which would show the offence to be of aggravated form. Out of the sentence imposed, the petitioner has undergone nearly five months RI. The counsel accordingly prays for some leniency. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has small children to look after and he is the only bread earner. Considering these facts, case for leniency is made out. The sentence imposed is reduced to a period of one year RI. Otherwise the revision is dismissed. December 07, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE