CR.RA/1189/1991 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 1189 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= VIKRAM PABJI CHAVDA - Applicant Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance : MR ASHIM PANDYA for MR VIJAY H PATEL for Applicant. MR KC SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent : 1 - State NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date : 01/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the revisionist to challenge the judgment and order rendered by the City Sessions Court, in CR.RA/1189/1991 2/8 JUDGMENT Criminal Appeal No.20/1991, on 4.10.1991, and to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Metropolitan Court No.3, in Criminal Case No.3369/1989, on 27.3.1991, convicting and confirming the conviction of the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, found that the prosecution was successful in establishing the charge and while convicting the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, sentenced him to undergo S.I for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo further S.I for one week. While convicting the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, the Court sentenced him to undergo S.I for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to undergo further S.I for 15 days. 1.1 The said judgment and order of the Metropolitan Court was challenged by the accused- revisionist before the City Sessions Court by preferring Criminal Appeal No.20/1991 and the Sessions Court by the judgment impugned, dismissed CR.RA/1189/1991 3/8 JUDGMENT the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision application before this Court. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the revisionist was driving Jeep-Car No. GUF-478 travelling from Dehgam side to Naroda side on 29.10.1989 around 19.45 hours. It was the case of the prosecution that the vehicle was being driven by the accused on the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner, and when the Jeep-Car was passing by the Naroda S.T. Bus Stand, it dashed against Cyclist Deepak and as a result of the accident, Deepak suffered several injuries and ultimately, succumbed to the same. The Jeep-Car also dashed against the first informant and caused injuries to his right leg. An FIR was, therefore, lodged and offence was registered under Sections 279, 304A & 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 112 & 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The witnesses were examined and ultimately, conviction came to be recorded. 2.1 A dispute was raised regarding identity of the driver of the vehicle, but, was turned down by CR.RA/1189/1991 4/8 JUDGMENT both the Courts below on merits. It has also been recorded that the identity aspect of the accused did not remain a matter of challenge any more, when the accused, while giving an application for exemption, specifically stated that identity of the accused is not in dispute. 3. This Court has heard learned advocate Mr.Asim Pandya for the revisionist, and learned A.P.P. Mr.K.C.Shah for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Asim Pandya submitted that accidents occur many a time in absence of any rashness or negligence on the part of driver of the vehicle. He submitted further that almost 19 years have gone by since the accident and 17 years since the conviction and, therefore, if the Court is not convinced about the merits, the sentence of imprisonment may be altered by enhancing fine and reducing the sentence of imprisonment. 5. The revision is opposed by learned A.P.P. Mr.Shah. He submitted that it is true that a long CR.RA/1189/1991 5/8 JUDGMENT time has passed since the occurrence and the judgment, but, the fact remains that a young boy has lost his life in the accident. He further submitted that this is a revision application and the scope of revision is very limited. He also submitted that so far as altering the sentence is concerned, the scope is still further limited and unless judicial discretion is shown to have been used in a manner, which would shock the conscious of the Court, Court may not interfere with the discretion used by the trial Court. He submitted that there are two concurrent findings of the competent criminal Courts before this Court. Mr.Shah lastly submitted that in a case, where a young boy has died in an accident, six months' S.I cannot be considered to be too harsh, so as to brand the discretion as improper, arbitrary or perverse. The Court may, therefore, not interfere with, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6. This Court has considered the rival side contentions in light of the evidence on record and the legal proposition. CR.RA/1189/1991 6/8 JUDGMENT 7. Besides the fact that there are concurrent findings of two competent criminal Courts below, the learned advocate for the revisionist also could not assail the judgments and orders on merits. The involvement of the revisionist in the accident has virtually been admitted. The accident and negligence part are also proved. The scope of revision application, considering as it is, would therefore, deter this Court from entering into the merits of the conviction. 8. So far as the sentence part is concerned, what has been argued is that long time has elapsed since the occurrence and the conviction. It is also contended that the revisionist is financially weak and his family may suffer, if he has to go in jail after such a long time and, therefore, the sentence may be altered. 9. In the opinion of this Court, financial condition may be a relevant factor at the time of imposition of sentence and/or fine. But, when this Court is called upon to exercise its revisional CR.RA/1189/1991 7/8 JUDGMENT jurisdiction, relevant factor would be, whether the sentence imposed by the Court below is in improper or arbitrary or perverse exercise of judicial discretion, and if the answer is not in affirmative, the Court would refrain from exercising its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence imposed by the Court below using its judicial discretion. In the instant case, in the accident in question, a young boy has lost his life and for that purpose, the revisionist came to be convicted and sentenced to S.I for six months, which, by no stretch of leniency or sympathy, can be said to be unduly harsh or disproportionate to the criminal act on the part of the revisionist. The discretion cannot be said to have been exercised in an improper, arbitrary or perverse manner. In this set of circumstances, this Court is of the view that revisional powers cannot be invoked in favour of the revisionist. The revision application must fail. 10. This Revision Application stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 4.10.1991 passed by the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal CR.RA/1189/1991 8/8 JUDGMENT No.20/1991 and the judgment and order dated 27.3.1991 passed by the Metropolitan Court No.3, in Criminal Case No. 3369/1989 are hereby confirmed. 11. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Pandya requests for time of two weeks for the revisionist to surrender to the custody. In the opinion of this Court, the request is reasonable and merits acceptance. The request is, therefore, accepted. The revisionist shall surrender before the Lower Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, it would be open for the Lower Court to take appropriate action for storing him to prison. [A.L.Dave,J.] (patel)