IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2117 of 2002 Date of decision: 1st April, 2010 Saudagar Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by Saudagar Singh. He was named as an accused in case FIR No.92 dated 18.12.1996 registered at Police Station Bhikhi under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Mansa vide its judgment dated 9th January, 2002, found the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 279, 304-A IPC and sentenced him as under: Under Section Period of Imprisonment Fine 279 IPC R.I. for a period of 6 months No fine 304-A IPC R.I. for a period of one year No fine Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court found no merit in the appeal and had dismissed the same, while upholding the conviction and maintaining the sentence. However, the lower appellate Court held that the sentence awarded by the trial Court shall run concurrently. Criminal Revision No.2117 of 2002 The present revision petition was listed for motion hearing on 25th October, 2002 and the following order was passed: “Both the Courts have concurrently found that the petitioner was driving the mini bus at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and as a result of that Labh Singh had died. In view of the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, I find no ground to interfere with the Judgment. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has two minor daughters to look after and a lenient view may be taken with regard to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. Notice of motion to AG, Punjab only regarding the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the petitioner, for 28.11.2002.” Therefore, this Court need not to advert the facts of the present case, as notice was confined to the quantum of sentence only. Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is a sole breadwinner of his family and he has not committed any such offence before or after the present occurrence. It is further submitted that at the time of occurrence, petitioner was aged about 45 years. In the present case, occurrence pertains to December, 1996. The petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial for more than 18 years and he has already undergone four and a half months’ out of one year’s sentence awarded to him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to provide financial assistance to the family of the deceased. Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone, subject to payment of fine of Rs.35,000/-. The amount of fine, so deposited, shall be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Labh Singh. The trial Court shall call upon 2 Criminal Revision No.2117 of 2002 the accused to deposit the fine. The trial Court shall also afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the fine. In case the fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. With these modifications in the sentence, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 1, 2010 rps 3