Crl. Revision No.1236 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1236 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 13, 2009 Gurdial Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Rajiv Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Sindhu, Addl.A.G., Punjab. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner Gurdial Singh has been convicted for the offence under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 11.7.2000 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Against the said judgment, he filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.3.2002 and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were affirmed. Against that judgment, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision. In this case, the alleged accident had taken place on 20.1.1994 with one mini bus bearing registration No.PAB-6038, which was being driven by the petitioner, in which one Ujjagar Singh, who was sitting in the three-wheeler being driven by Manjit Singh, received injuries and later on Crl. Revision No.1236 of 2002 -2- died in the hospital. As per the prosecution case, the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. It is further the case of the prosecution that at the time of the accident the petitioner was driving the mini bus at a very high speed and was trying to overtake a truck. On seeing the bus at a high speed, Manjit Singh, driver of the three-wheeler, coming from the opposite direction, applied brakes and brought the same on the Kutcha passage. The accused without blowing the horn of the bus and without applying the brakes, struck the bus against the tempo. As a result of the accident, the three-wheeler fell into the fields and the same was broken. Because of the accident, he along with other occupants of the three-wheeler received injuries. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the allegation of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In defence, the accused raised the plea that at the time of the accident, he was driving the bus at a normal speed and when he was crossing the truck, suddenly, three-wheeler had come from the opposite side at a fast speed. He applied the brakes but could not avoid the accident. He further raised the plea that the accident had caused due to negligent driving of the driver of the three-wheeler. The trial Court after taking into consideration the material available on the record and the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, convicted the accused and sentenced him, as indicated above. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below as well as the record of the case. After arguing for some time, when the learned counsel for the Crl. Revision No.1236 of 2002 -3- petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, he submits that in this case a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submits that out of one year of sentence, the petitioner had already undergone actual sentence of 4 months and 6 days. He further submitted that since July 31, 2002 the petitioner is on bail. He has already suffered protracted trial for the last about 15 years. He further stated that since he is the first offender and no previous conviction is proved, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. In these facts and circumstances, even learned counsel for the respondent-State has not strongly objected if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the quantum of sentence, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage when he has already undergone 4 months and 6 days of actual sentence and is on bail since July 31, 2002. Thus, keeping in view the said fact and the facts that he has already suffered protracted trial for the last about 15 years and is not a previous convict, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence, the criminal revision is dismissed. February 13, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE