IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2476 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 02, 2011 Nand Lal ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, vide order dated 12.01.2011. In appeal filed by the accused/revisionist, order on quantum of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court Crl.Revision No.2476 of 2011 was modified. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and three months instead of two years under Section 304-A IPC by learned Appellate Court/Sessions Judge, Rupngar, vide judgment dated 25.07.2011. The brief facts of this case are that the prosecution machinery set into motion on the information received from police post, Sector 32, Chandigarh, to the effect that Rajesh Gautam and Pawan Gautam have been admitted due to the injuries suffered by them in a road side accident. As per the complainant, on 24.01.2004, he along with his family members was going in Maruti Car bearing No. CH03-C-8073 on the extreme left hand side of the road and in the meantime, a Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing registration No. HP-24-0136 came from the opposite side which was being driven by the accused-revisionist in a rash and negligent manner and while coming to the wrong side, hit against the car of the complainant, due to which, the occupants of the car sustained serious injuries. Vipul succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 10.04.2004. During the trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and PW6 who is an independent witness has categorically deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. His statement is fully corroborated by PW1, PW2 and PW9. The factum of accident 2 Crl.Revision No.2476 of 2011 is not denied by the petitioner. It has also come on record that the petitioner after causing the accident fled away from the spot and later on he was identified by the prosecution witnesses as the culprit for causing accident in question. The factum of accident with the offending vehicle is not denied by the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Post Mortem Report has been proved on record which goes to show that Vipul sustained fatal injuries in the accident. Both the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for causing the accident in question and held him guilty under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. I do not find any reason for interfering with the findings of the Courts below. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. November 02, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3