1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 195 OF 2010 Shaikh Salim Shaikh Ahmed, Aged 38 years, Occupation Driver, R/o. Chitegaon, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. K.V. Hore, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.N. Kendre, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 30th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision application is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the applicant had committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was driving his Goods Tempo and had allowed the victim and 24 others to board his vehicle in the area where goods are stored. It is the prosecution case that at a turn, the applicant applied breaks and that resulted into tumbling down of the victim from the tempo. This fall resulted into causing fracture injuries to the victim. The Courts below held that the offences are proved. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant tried to submit that there is no evidence to show that the applicant drove his vehicle in rash or negligent manner. But, the prosecution has amply proved two facts, which in my view are sufficient to hold that the applicant had driven his vehicle in negligent manner, first; the 2 applicant admittedly allowed the victim and other 24 persons to board his vehicle. His vehicle was not meant for carrying people. It was goods vehicle. This in itself was an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and for which the applicant has been convicted also. But, in addition to this, whoever allows so many people to board goods vehicle so as to transport them from one place to other, the moment his starts his vehicle, he commits an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. A vehicle, which is not meant for carrying people, if is loaded with people and is driven on a public way, this in itself would amount to an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and such offenders should be prosecuted under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, even though in the process no one gets injured. Besides, such driver would also be liable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The second part of the prosecution case is also amply proved when the prosecution witnesses No. 1 and 3 clearly stated that they felt sudden jerk to the vehicle due to application of breaks, and, with the result, the prosecution witness No.1, the victim, tumbled out of the vehicle. If the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code is proved against the applicant. The injuries caused to the victim are required to be proved. In this case, therefore, there is hardly any scope to interfere in the findings of the Courts below about conviction of the applicant. However, in my view, the quantum of sentence awarded to the applicant appears rather harsh. He is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and he is also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. I think, these terms deserve to be reduced considerably. The victim and other persons traveling in the vehicle of the applicant voluntarily boarded the vehicle and 3 thereby took risk of accident and injury. Therefore, I am inclined to reduce the substance sentence awarded to the applicant as follows : (a) The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. (b) The conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act is confirmed. However, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of two months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of one month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. (c) The sentence awarded to the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not disturbed. Even the fine amount is not disturbed. (d) All the sentences shall run concurrently. (e) Bail bond stands cancelled. (f) Issue arrest warrant against the applicant. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) srm/cra/195/10/30/9/10