IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 152 of 2010 Date of Decision 28.07.2010 __________________________________________________________ Mukesh Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging his conviction by the two Courts below for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and similarly, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and was admonished for the offence under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. The learned Sessions Judge has upheld the sentence. The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.2.2005 around 1.30 P.M. the complainant Raj Kumar and Kuram Devi were travelling in jeep No. HP-33A-8961which was going on Barot-Thaltukhod link road. Near Tikan the jeep being over loaded, the driver of said jeep asked the complainant and Kuram to sit on the roof. The jeep thereafter was driven by the petitioner in rash or negligent manner. The petitioner applied brakes suddenly as a result of which both the complainant and Kuram fell down from the roof and sustained injuries. The driver-petitioner fled away from the spot. 3. On the evidence on record, the Court below convicted the petitioner. Appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. I have gone through the judgment of both the Courts below. I do not find any extenuating circumstances and find that Courts below have dealt with the case by taking a lenient view while sentencing the accused-petitioner. There is no perversity in the judgment passed by the learned Courts below. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. July 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge