IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2521 of 2003 Date of Decision 23.09.2010 Nirmal Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Malkiat Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 01.12.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 21.07.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Allegations against the petitioner are that on 28.10.1994, he while driving the truck bearing registration No.PAR-8898 rashly and negligently and at a high speed, struck against the scooter of Jaswinder Singh from wrong side, resultantly, he received injuries and died at the spot. Consequently, on trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, some leniency on the quantum of sentence has been sought. Criminal Revision No.2521 of 2003 -2- Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected in the conduct of trial or procedure, which may result into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1994. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for such a long time in various Courts. He has already undergone more than 3½ months of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence,which is reduced to six months. However, the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased within three months from today, failing which, he would serve the remaining part of sentence, as awarded by the Courts below. It is made clear that remissions would also be calculated in his sentence as permissible to him under law. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 23.09.2010 mamta-II