Criminal Revision No. 2275 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2275 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2010 Madan Lal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner Madan Lal was convicted for an offence under Sections, 279/ 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kharar. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half year with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 3.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali). Hence, the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No. 2275 of 2010(O&M) 2 Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Succinctly stated, as per the prosecution allegations on 18.4.2005, the complainant Harmit Singh son of Gurdial Singh resident of village Badesha Khurd, Police Station Khamanon made a statement to the police that on the previous day, he along with his cousin Jatinder Pal Singh resident of Sector 27-D, Chandigarh and Jagjit Singh resident of village Chapper Chiri was going towards Chandigarh from Khamanon in car bearing registration No.PB-49-A-0147. His maternal uncle Jasbir Singh, cousin Rupinder Pal Singh and his father-in-law Joginder Singh were going a little ahead of them in car bearing registration No.PB-65-C-9090 (Ford Ikon). The said car was being driven by Rupinder Pal Singh. When they reached near the saw mill of Prem Chand in the are of village Mundi Kharar at about 11.30 pm a canter bearing registration No.PB-12-C-1405 came from the side of Chandigarh. The said canter was being driven at a very high speed and in a negligent manner. The driver of the said canter hit the right side of the canter into car bearing registration No.PB-65-C-9090. On account of the impact of the accident, the car was totally damaged and all the occupants of the car died on the spot. The head of the Criminal Revision No. 2275 of 2010(O&M) 3 body of Jasbir Singh was severed of. He further stated that a large number of persons had gathered at the spot and even the Highway Patrolling police party and the Ambulance vehicles belonging to the police department also reached the place of occurrence. They had sent the dead bodies to the hospital in the said ambulances. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the canter by Madan Lal son of Mangi Ram, who had brought his canter on the wrong side when the same was at a fast speed and had not given the deeper. On the basis of the said statement FIR No.83 dated 18.4.2005 under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Kharar.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. The petitioner was driving a canter bearing registration No.PB-12-C-1405 on the day of the accident from Chandigarh side. As per the version given by the eye-witnesses, the petitioner was driving the canter at a high speed and due to his rash and negligent driving, he struck the canter against a car bearing registration No.PB-65-C-9090, in which the deceased were travelling. Three persons died due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have categorically held that the accident in question had taken place due Criminal Revision No. 2275 of 2010(O&M) 4 to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. A perusal of the site plan (shown during the course of arguments) leads to the inference that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 19, 2010 anita