IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.45 of 2004. Date of decision: 09.09.2010. Ramesh Chand … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the two Courts below convicting him for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The case before the learned trial Court was that on 20th February, 1996, at around 9.50 A.M. one Ramninder Singh informed the Police at Jawalamukhi that there was collision between two buses near village Dharoon. In this accident several persons had been injured. Report was accordingly registered with the Police and SI Jagdish Chand proceeded to the spot where 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Rai Singh PW-2 made a statement Ex.PW-2/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he stated that he was earlier posted as driver with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation at Dehra and has now been transferred. On the day of the accident he was on duty on Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus No.HP-38-2429 from Baldwara to Pathankot. At around 9.50 A.M. when his bus reached near village Dharoon, a private bus belongs to Prem Bus Service bearing No.HP- 39-3585 enroute from Kangra to Deotsidh came from the opposite direction. When he spotted this bus the complainant stopped his bus on the un-mattled portion of the road on the left side, but the other bus came, collided with his bus as a result of which the front wind screen of the bus was shattered. He was trapped in his seat and was rescued by the other persons on the spot by cutting the seat etc. of the bus. He sustained serious injuries. The occupants of both the buses were also hurt. On Considering the evidence of PW-2 Rai Singh, Hari Ram PW-3, who was conductor of the bus which PW-2 was driving, PW-1 Jagat Ram, who had boarded the bus (i.e. of Prem Bus Service) from Rani Tal, has stated that the bus was being driven at a fast speed, the learned Court convicted the accused. This finding has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. 3. I am not persuaded to take a different view after the evidence has been appreciated and re- appreciated by two Courts. Rash and negligent driving 3 has assumed abnormal proportion and in this view of the circumstances, a strict approach is required to deal with such offenders. On the question of sentencing the petitioner, I find that the incident is of 1996 and that now a period of more than 14 years has been elapsed, it would be in the fitness of things that the sentence of imprisonment is set aside subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the learned trial Court within a period of six months from today. On such deposit being made, it shall be paid to the injured Shri Rai Singh (Ramninder Singh). It is clarified that in case of non deposit of the amount, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive. September 9, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.