IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.14 of 2002. Date of Decision 16.3.2009. _____________________________________________ Bal Krishan. ..Appellant. Versus. State of H.P. ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? . For the appellant : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate For the respondent: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surinder Singh,J(Oral). The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 59-II/97 RBT 180-II/98 passed on 14.10.1999, whereby he was sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, which was un-successfully assailed by the petitioner in an appeal before the Court of Sessions. Against the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the present revision petition is preferred on the ground that the learned court below Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 did not appreciate the evidence on the right perspective. Further that there were real contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. During the course of the hearing of the case, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has died and the death certificate has also been placed on record by the learned Assistant Advocate General. In the case in hand, concurrent findings of fact of guilt passed by the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with as there is no illegality but, because the petitioner has died and fine stands deposited, the order of undergoing substantive sentence has become infructuous. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of. (Surinder Singh), Judge. March 16, 2009(R