Crl. Rev. no. 976 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. no. 976 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 18-07-2011 Chhote Lal ....Petitioner VERSUS State of UT, Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Preetpal, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Trial Court and that of the Appellate Court whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence committed under Section 279, 304B IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset without referring to the merits of the case has contended that the petitioner has already undergone more than 3 months of the total substantive sentence awarded to him and that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him in jail. She has further stated that there is no other offence committed by the petitioner of the like nature. Notice of motion was issued and the prayer which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for U.T, Chandigarh. I have considered the matter in detail. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner who was driving the vehicle struck against scooter Crl. Rev. no. 976 of 2011 (O&M) 2 being driven by one Deepak Kumar and the pillion rider who was said to be his fiancee suffered injuries in the process and died. He was thus an eye witness who testified and supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner was also apprehended at the spot. The mechanical examination of the vehicles involved in the collision also established that the accident has been caused. In view of the overwhelming evidence, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner caused the accident and hit the scooter from behind. Petitioner came from the opposite side and the negligence is thus much at him which is also fortified from the photographs on record. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any infirmity committed by the Courts below and it is a settled principle of law that in revision the Courts should not interfere unless there is some patent illegality and while determining the proceedings in the revision, the Court should not act as the Court of appeal. Consequently, the revision is held to be without any merit. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has never been involved in any other offence and he has already undergone more than 3 months of the total substantive sentence of 1 year awarded to him and is more than 60 years of age and is the only bread winner of the family. Having regard to the facts that the petitioner has already undergone more than 3 months of the total substantive sentence awarded to him and noticing the fact that prima facie it appears that he is not involved in any other offence and is also advanced in age, I deem it appropriate to maintain the conviction and reduce the same to that of already undergone by enhancing the fine component to Rs.25,000/- which shall be deposited Crl. Rev. no. 976 of 2011 (O&M) 3 within one month from today with the Trial Court which shall upon due notice to the complainant, disburse the amount to the L.Rs of the deceased. In case of default of the deposit of the enhanced amount of fine within the stipulated period, the order of conviction shall stand revived automatically. Disposed of. July 18, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge