IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision Petition No.767 of 1996 Date of Decision: 3.8.2009 Balbir Singh. ....... Petitioner through Shri Azad Singh, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Mrs.Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 1.10.1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as `the appellate Court') whereby the appeal of the petitioner filed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.4.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal (described hereinafter as `the trial Court') was dismissed. The petitioner, who was a driver with Haryana Roadways, faced criminal proceedings under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the I.P.C. on the allegations that he, on 9.7.1989, while driving government bus no. Crl.Revision No.767 of 1996 -2- .... HRQ-3436 in a rash and negligent manner, caused accident near Pati Afghan, Kaithal with a `Jhota-Buggi', resulting in the injuries to the complainant and death of his nephew. After completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for an offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C.; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for offences punishable under Sections 337 and 279 of the I.P.C. he was directed to pay the fine of Rs.300/- and Rs.500/- for the said offences respectively. In default of payment of amount of fine as aforesaid, the petitioner was ordered to undergo imprisonment for three months, fifteen days and one month for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337, 279 of the I.P.C., respectively. However,all the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, was dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence, this revision petition. At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accident in this case took place on 9.7.1989, the conviction and sentence were awarded by the trial Court in the year 1993 and the revision petition was admitted in the year 1996 and, thus, the petitioner has faced the agony of the criminal proceedings for the last almost eighteen to nineteen years. He further contended that by now, the petitioner has retired from service of Crl.Revision No.767 of 1996 -3- .... the Haryana Roadways where he was working as a driver and, therefore, it will be extremely harsh if he is made to undergo rigorous imprisonment at this stage of his life. He submitted that there was no other case against the petitioner. In view of the above, without addressing the Court on merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter may be considered sympathetically and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner either may be converted into that of already undergone or he may be released on probation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioner had caused the accident killing the deceased and severally injuring the complainant, he-buffalo (Jhota) and also causing damage to the bullock-cart and, therefore, since the matter has been conclusively proved by cogent evidence on record, he does not deserve any compassion. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition. In the accident in question, the involvement of the bus being driven by the petitioner was established beyond any doubt and so was his identity. PW5- Kali Ram has stated that he and his nephew were going in the Jhota-Buggi which was hit by the bus and this accident was witnessed by PW4-Dalip Singh. According to him, his nephew died at the spot as a result of the accident. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which the testimony of PW5-Kali Ram can be shattered. In this view of the Crl.Revision No.767 of 1996 -4- .... matter, the petitioner can not escape his liability, especially when no illegality or infirmity has been shown in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner deserves to be upheld. However, having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 1989 and the fact that the petitioner has faced the agony of criminal trial for the last eighteen to nineteen years, & also the fact that he has since retired from service in the year 2006 which is evident from some material on record, I am of the opinion that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him deserves to be converted into that of already undergone by him and rather, the amount of fine should be enhanced. For this view, I draw support from the ratio of the law laid down in Kharak Singh and others Versus State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 766 (P&H); Sadhu Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 108 (P&H); Moti Sagar and others Versus State of Haryana and another, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 519 (P&H) and Darshan Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 212 (P&H). Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The conviction of the petitioner shall remain intact; (ii) the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to that of already undergone and the fine is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- which shall include the fine of Rs.2800/- already imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court . The enhanced fine shall be deposited by the Crl.Revision No.767 of 1996 -5- .... petitioner within a period of three months from today before the trial Court; (iii) the whole amount of fine, if realised, shall be paid by the trial Court to the family of the deceased after due verification; and (iv) in the event of failure of the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount of fine within the stipulated period, the sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the appellate Court shall automatically stand revived. August 3,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge