IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 14 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: November 9, 2011 Ram Nath .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. H.L. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has impugned his conviction for offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC. On conviction, the petitioner was imposed a punishment of 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC and 3 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 279 IPC. The revision filed by the petitioner was admitted in the year 2005. Incident is of 13.11.1996. The petitioner was convicted on 27.8.2001. His appeal was dismissed on 14.10.2004 and thereafter, his revision is pending. The sentence imposed on the petitioner is under suspension and he is on bail. When the case came up for hearing, there was a Crl. Revision No. 14 of 2005 -2- dispute between the parties in regard to the period of custody undergone by the petitioner. State counsel has now got a fresh custody certificate, which is in conformity with the custody certificate produced by the petitioner. The petitioner has undergone a sentence of 6 months and 20 days. It is an old incident. The petitioner was convicted for an offence of rash or negligent driving. The petitioner had faced the agony of trial for a period of nearly 5 years and thereafter, was before the appellate Court for 3 years. His revision is pending from the last 7 years. The petitioner obviously would have faced great agony on account of pendency of these criminal proceedings. He obviously has suffered much besides the period of custody underdone by him. The submission by the State counsel is that it is case of death of a young girl, who was crushed under the tyre. May be it is so, but ultimately the allegations are only of rash or negligent act. It is not intentional in any manner. The petitioner apparently is repenting for his unintentional act. At this belated stage, making the petitioner to undergo the remaining sentence may retard the efforts to reform the petitioner. The petitioner will have to remain in the company of hardened criminals. No other purpose may be achieved by sending the petitioner in custody. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is reduced to the period already undergone. The revision is otherwise dismissed. November 9, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE