Criminal Revision No. 3192 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 3192 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 11th July, 2011 Shiam Lal .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondents Before : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Pirthi Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Mahesh Grover, J.(Oral) This petition has been filed by the petitioners, aggrieved against the judgments of the learned trial court and that of the learned appellate court vide which he has been convicted for having committed an offence under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code registered vide FIR No. 39, dated 14.04.2003 at Police Station Anandpur Sahib. According to the prosecution story, the petitioner while driving a truck rashly and negligently hit a scooter with two Criminal Revision No. 3192 of 2010(O&M) 2 occupants, resulting in severe injuries and eventually death to them. The petitioner instead of stopping the vehicle fled from the spot again at a very high speed and in the process hit a cyclist, killing him in the process as well. The complainant who is working as A.L.M in PSEB department in complaint office, Anandpur Sahib and was in process of parking a scooter, witnessed the first impact of the vehicle of the petitioner with the scooterist. He chased the petitioner and witnessed the second accident as well. Both the courts below concluded that the case against the petitioner, stood proved and sentenced him two years rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a person would not be able to chase a truck being driven rashly and negligently for as long as 5 kilometres and thus, witness both the incidents. He contended that the entire story is concocted by the police. He further submitted that out of total period of two years rigorous imprisonment, the petitioner has already undergone 11 months imprisonment and in the eventuality of the Court, not accepting the plea of the petitioner some leniency may be shown to him regarding the sentence. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments. It is a settled principle of law that while determining a revision petition, the court cannot act as a court of appeal and the interference is warranted only where any illegality is committed by Criminal Revision No. 3192 of 2010(O&M) 3 the courts below. The argument that the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised is a plea which is merely based on preponderables and cannot be made the basis of interference in the revisional jurisdiction. No other point having been urged before this court, it is left to evaluate the plea of leniency. The facts reveal that the petitioner after knocking down two persons on a scooter attempted to flee and in the process killed a cyclist as well. These facts, and the manner, in which the offence has been committed do not warrant any reduction in sentence. No ground is made out to interfere. The revision petition is dismissed. [MAHESH GROVER] JUDGE 11th July, 2011 Shivani Kaushik