IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.2233 of 2010 Date of Decision:7.9.2010 Tarsem Lal .... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Gorakhnath, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1.Whether 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge(FTC), Ropar, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 3.12.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandput Sahib, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279,337,338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to undergo further SI for 2 ½ months. While filing the present revision petition against the judgment dated 3.12.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib and the judgment dated 14.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ropar vide which the appeal was dismissed, the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in fact on 20/21.8.2000, it was raining and near the place of the accident where the truck turned turtle, slippery mud was lying on the road and the truck turned turtle accidentally on account of slippery mud on the road at the Crl. R. No.2233 of 2010 -2- place of the accident. This accident was an “Act of God” and this accident had not been caused on account of the rash or negligent driving of the truck by its owner. There is no merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In as much as there is no plea or even an iota of evidence before the trial Court or in the appeal that it was raining heavily on that night or that the road was slippery or there was mud on the road. In fact, six persons died in this accident. Number of injured witnesses who boarded the truck in question supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver. One of the witness namely Reena Rani aged 14 years described the accident in detail and stated that the accused was requested time and again to drive the truck in question at a slow speed but he did not bother to listen to the request of the occupants of the truck. As a result thereof 6 persons died whereas 30 persons received injuries in the said accident. There is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE