1 CRA-69-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 2011 Dashrath @ Narayan Maruti Bansode ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.K.W.Vitonde, Advocate, for the applicant Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 14th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. Heard. 2. The applicant was tried in the Summary Case No.194/1991 by the learned J.M.F.C. Atpadi, District Sangli for the offences under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 , 427 of IPC and under Sections 184 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted him for the offences under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 of IPC and under Sections 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In appeal, the conviction under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act was set aside by the Sessions Judge, Sangli, but the remaining order was maintained. For the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC, no separate 2 CRA-69-11.sxw sentence was awarded. For the offence under Section 304A, the accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for further three months. This revision application is filed against the conviction and sentence. 3. On perusal of the record, it appears that the accused was driving the Tempo by which the teachers and students were proceeding for a school trip. In all 17 students and teachers were travelling by the tempo. The accused was driving the vehicle in high speed and in a zigzag manner. Due to rash and negligent driving, the tempo met with an accident due to which one Mahadev Yeshwant Khandekar, who was the teacher, died and several students were injured. The accused had pleaded that due to break down of the front axle, the accident had taken place. This contention was rejected by the Courts below. It was noted that as per the evidence on record, even after application of brake by the accused, the tempo was running for 90 feet and there were brake marks upto 50 feet on the kutchha road. That indicated the high speed and also indicated that the front axle must have broken after the accident and not before. Taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses who were travelling by the vehicle as well as the contents of panchnama which were proved by the investigating Officer, I find no reason to disturb the finding of the Courts below that the accused was 3 CRA-69-11.sxw driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and that he was liable to be convicted. 4. The case was tried summarily. Sec. 262(2) of Cr.P.C. provides that no sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in case of any conviction under this Chapter. Therefore, when the case was tried summarily, sentence of imprisonment could not exceed 3 months. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the trial Court should have converted the case into warrant trial case under Sec.259 Cr.P.C. and had it been so, more severe punishment could have been awarded. As the case is 20 years old, no purpose will be served by remanding the matter for re-hearing after converting the same into warrant case. In any case, when the case is tried summarily, the sentence of imprisonment of one year could not be passed by the learned Magistrate. Unfortunately, this aspect was not even noted by the Sessions Judge, Sangli, who heard the appeal. In view of these circumstances, the revision application will have to be allowed to the extent of sentence. 5. The Revision Application is partly allowed. While the conviction of the accused is maintained, the sentence stands modified thus: He shall undergo R.I. for three months and shall pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default, shall undergo further R.I. for three months. 4 CRA-69-11.sxw Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)