IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.197 of 2008 Decided on: March 18, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Petitioner. VERSUS Shyam Lal ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. For the respondents : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State has filed this petition seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 21.11.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat in case No.4/2 of 2000 acquitting the respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. in case F.I.R. No.75/99 dated 27.8.1999, Police Station, Kandaghat. 2. The facts in brief are that on 27.8.1999 statement of Hari Ram was recorded to the effect that he is driver on truck bearing registration No.HP-07-3586. The truck was loaded with potatoes and started from Shimla to Delhi on 27.8.1999. At about 1 p.m. near Kandaghat one car bearing registration No.CH-01M-3822 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the truck from wrong side, 6 – 7 persons sitting in the car sustained injuries. The accident took place Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the car. Accordingly, case was registered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented. Notice of accusation was put to the respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. On conclusion of trial, the respondent was acquitted. 3. Heard. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. He has prayed for grant of leave to file appeal. The learned Magistrate has observed in Para-13 of the judgment that persons sitting in the car were injured and they have not supported the prosecution version and were declared hostile. The speed of the accidental vehicle is not established nor the identity of the accused has been proved. No independent witness has been examined even though many persons gathered on the spot at the time of accident. The truck driver has not been examined. No reason has been recorded in the impugned judgment for not examining the driver of the truck by the prosecution, similarly in the application seeking leave to file appeal nothing has been stated for not examining Hari Singh, the driver of the truck. The learned Magistrate has appreciated the material on record properly. No case has been made out for grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment. Hence, leave to appeal refused and the petition is dismissed. March 18, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)