IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.451 of 2002 Date of decision : June 3, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Gaggan Chand …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 8th July, 1999, of the trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Gaggan Chand, who was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case was registered against the respondent by the police, on the report, Ex. PW-8/A, lodged by Ramnik Singh (PW-6). It was stated in that report that the respondent, who was driving Bus No.HPK-3865, on 2nd January, 1994, hit a cyclist, in the market of village Maranda, and that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the Bus by the respondent. Cyclist was Naresh Kumar, a student of 8th standard. As a result of the accident, he sustained simple injuries and was rushed to the hospital. Police challaned the respondent. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Prosecution examined the injured boy and some other witnesses, during the course of the trial. The injured boy admitted, in his cross-examination, that he appeared on the road through a lane, on his bicycle, and that on seeing him the respondent applied the brakes, but one corner of the Bus hit the cycle. He also stated that the speed of the Bus was 10-12 kms. per hour, when he appeared on the road from a lane. It is because of this statement of the injured boy that the trial Court has held that the respondent is not to be blamed for the occurrence of the accident and has acquitted him. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. Nobody appears for the respondent. 5. From a perusal of the statement of the injured boy, it is clear that the speed of the bus was only 10-12 kms. per hour, when he appeared on the road, from a lane, all of a sudden, and immediately, on seeing him, the respondent applied the brakes of his Bus, but still one corner of the Bus hit the cycle. In view of the abovestated position, I see no reason for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. June 3, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J