-1- Criminal Revision No.545 of 2002. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.545 of 2002. Date of Decision: February 04, 2010. Gian Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Gian Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code -2- Criminal Revision No.545 of 2002. (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') and sentenced to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. In this case, petitioner Gian Singh, who was driving the offending tractor attached with a trolley filled with Sand, without giving any signal or blowing horn turned the tractor swiftly on his right hand side resulting in striking of the scooter, being driven by Jaspal Singh, with the trolley from behind. Amarjit Singh was riding the pillion of the scooter. As a result of this accident, both Jaspal Singh and Amarjit Singh received injuries. Surinder Pal, brother of Jaspal Singh, who had been following Jaspal Singh and Amarjit Singh on a scooter, got the injured admitted in the hospital at Adampur. The condition of Jaspal Singh being serious, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. However, Jasapl Singh succumbed to his injuries on his way to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by injured Amarjit Singh. The eye-witness account in this case was furnished by Amarjit Singh (P.W.2) and Surinder Pal (P.W.3). There was no reason for Amarjit Singh (P.W.2) and Surinder Pal (P.W.3) to falsely implicate the petitioner. The petitioner, who was driving the tractor, was required to give indication to the traffic coming from behind the tractor-trolley that he was taking the trolley towards the right side of the road. Certainly, the petitioner was -3- Criminal Revision No.545 of 2002. rash and negligent in taking the tractor-trolley towards the right side of the road without giving any indication. Further, if the petitioner was overtaking any other vehicle and drove the tractor-trolley towards the right side, he was required to give indication to the traffic coming behind the tractor. In fact, no serious challenge could be made to the veracity of the prosecution case by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments. In view of the above, I do not see any reason warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit. February 04, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE