Crl.R.No.2858 of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.2858 of 2010(O&M) Date of Order: 26.10.2010 Balwinder Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Crl.M.No.55035 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.R.No.2858 of 2010(O&M) By filing the instant revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C, petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 6.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala convicting him under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC, to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC and to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC, was dismissed. Prosecution was set in motion on the statement of Nanak Ram, who stated that on 4.12.2001, he was travelling in a PRTC bus bearing No.PB-11M-1702, and was sitting on the rear seat of the driver and that the Crl.R.No.2858 of 2010(O&M) #2# bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, who was stopped by him as well as other passengers not to drive the bus at such a speed. He alleged that when the bus reached near Village Swarajpur on Samana Patiala road, bus suddenly turned towards right side. It struck against a tree and turned turtle thus causing injuries to him & other co- passengers while causing death of two passengers. Later on, he came to know that two passengers had died at the spot whereas many other passengers received injuries and that the driver of the bus fled away from the spot. Learned counsel submits that the accident was a natural occurrence due to mechanical fault of the bus and the petitioner could not be held guilty for the same. He contends that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution, which falsifies the prosecution case. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there are concurrent findings of both the courts below, which after appreciating ocular as well as documentary evidence have rightly held the petitioner guilty for rash and negligent driving. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. October 26, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE