1 CRI.REVN.APP.256/1999. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.256 OF 1999. Sk.Janimiyan Sk.Lal Mohd. Age: 37 years, Occ: Driver, R/o: Anandnagar, Tanhaji Chowk, Latur. ...Petitioner. (Original accused) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Dindrud Police Station, Tal.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. 2. Subhadrabai Vasant Salunke, R/o.Chiknali, Tal.Dharur, Dist.Beed. ...Respondents. ... Mrs.A.N.Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner/original accused. Mrs.R.R.Mane, APP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2-Absent. ... 2 CRI.REVN.APP.256/1999. CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 26th June, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioner/original accused is challenging the judgment & order dated 15th July, 1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, convicting and sentencing him for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Lower Appellate Court was deciding the Criminal Appeal arising from a Criminal Case No. 1132/1994. The petitioner/original accused faced the trial and the learned JMFC, Majalgaon convicted him under Sections 304-A, 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. The learned JMFC, Majalgaon, convicted the petitioner/original accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, and 3 CRI.REVN.APP.256/1999. sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and he further sentenced the petitioner/original accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs.4000/-. 3. In the appellate Court, the quantum of sentence was reduced to one year for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, and etc. I perused both the Judgments of the lower Courts. There was hardly any defence available to the petitioner/original accused. The motor vehicle accident took place at about 09.00 a.m. at broad day light on a busy public road near Jawala S.T.Bus stand. The petitioner/original accused, it is alleged, was driving his motor truck and was going towards east. He allegedly collided on a stationary motor cycle, on which the rider was still sitting. The motorcycle was on the right side of the petitioner's vehicle. It is alleged that the petitioner came in high speed and despite the collision, the petitioner/original accused did not stop his vehicle. Due to the collision, the rider of the motorcycle as well as the motorcycle got trapped under the truck and 4 CRI.REVN.APP.256/1999. the victim sustained extensive injuries. The petitioner/original accused stopped his vehicle only because he heard alarm raised by the bystanders and the witnesses. The witnesses then asked the petitioner to take his truck in reverse so that they could remove the motorcycle and the victim which got entangled in the rear wheel. Accordingly, it is stated, the petitioner took his vehicle in rear gear and the victim and the motorcycle were removed. By the time the victim was sent to hospital etc.. The petitioner left the spot but the cleaner of his vehicle was available to give information regarding the petitioner/original accused's name and address. Accordingly, thereafter the complaint was lodged. 4. The only question that could have been inconvenient to the prosecution was the identity of the petitioner, because soon after the incident the petitioner had left the spot and the witnesses were not knowing him since prior to the incident. No identification parade was held. But the difficulty of identification of the petitioner as the accused was resolved through the information given by the cleaner of the vehicle. On perusal of the judgment of the lower 5 CRI.REVN.APP.256/1999. appellate court, I find no error. The judgment is well written. The reasons are cogent and even the part of the judgment which discussed the quantum of sentence also can not be found incorrect. The learned Sessions Judge reduced the quantum of the substantive sentence and I find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. i) The Revision Applicant stands dismissed. ii) Since the petitioner/original accused is not before the Court, issue arrest warrant against him. He should be arrested and sent to jail to undertake the sentence. iii) Rule is discharged. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.