IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 491 of 2002 Date of judgment: June 4, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Amzad Khan …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 19.4.2002, of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby allowing the appeal partly against the judgment dated 19.2.2001 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, against the conviction and sentence of respondent Amjad Khan for offences, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, conviction and sentence for offence under Section 279 IPC has been upheld, while conviction and sentence for offence under Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Section 337 IPC, has been set aside, with the observation that a person cannot be convicted and sentenced of both the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC at the same time, because the definition of two offences is the same and that only difference is that in case of offence under Section 279 IPC, rash or negligent act is committed by driving a vehicle on a public way and in case of offence under Section 337 IPC, rash or negligent act is other than driving of a vehicle. I have heard Shri Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. View taken by the Sessions Court, is not correct. Offences, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, are totally different. Act of driving a vehicle in rash and negligent manner endangering human life or the personal safety of others, is punishable under Section 279 IPC, but when in case of rash or negligent driving referred to in Section 279 IPC, an accident takes place and some person sustains injuries, offence becomes punishable under Section 337 IPC also. It appears that learned Sessions Judge has confused the offence under Section 337 IPC with offence under Section 336 IPC, which makes any rash or negligent act ( other than rash or negligent driving of a vehicle), punishable, irrespective of the fact, whether any person gets hurt, as a result of that act or not. In view of the above discussion, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, to the extent it acquits the respondent of offence under Section 337 - 3 - IPC, is set aside and the judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing him for the said offence under Section 337 IPC, is upheld. Appeal disposed of. June 4, 2009 (Surjit Singh), J. s.