Criminal Revision No.1205 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1205 of 2005 Date of Decision: 14.02.2011 Sardool Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, D.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated June 4th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 4th, 2004 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, whereby, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC SI for 6 months - - 304-A IPC RI for 1 year ` 1000/- SI for 15 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Firstly, the facts: On December 10th, 1999, Iqbal Singh (deceased) was going on his scooter from Hariana Town to Hoshiarpur. A bus bearing No. PB-12-C-9114, driven by the petitioner, came from the side of Hariana at a fast speed and driven in a rash and negligent manner by petitioner and hit the scooter of Iqbal Singh. The occurrence was witnessed by Amrik Singh, (PW-1), Manohar Singh Criminal Revision No.1205 of 2005 2 .. (PW-2) and Manjit Singh (PW-4). He was brought to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where he died on the same day. On the statement (Exhibit PA) of Amrik Singh, First Information Report No. 141 dated December 11th, 1999 was recorded by Kapoor Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-6). Site Plan (Exhibit PW-6/C) was prepared. 3. After completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused was arraigned for trial. 4. The petitioner was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined six witnesses. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Code to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. He denied his complicity. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not challenge the judgment of conviction and only prays for reduction of sentence. The grounds pleaded are that (i). the petitioner is in his 70s as on date; (ii) he was driver in Punjab Roadways and has not indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case; (iii). that the petitioner has suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 11 years and (iv). he has already undergone sentence of 1 month and 24 days. 7. To support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon (i) Sudh Ram vs. State of Punjab 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 550; (ii) Girdhari Lal Vs. State of Punjab 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 988 and (iii). Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 428. 8. In Sudh Ram and Girdhari Lal's case (supra), the accused convicted under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC had undergone actual sentence of 2-1/2 months and 2 months respectively and this Court released them on probation. 9. In Avtar Singh's case (supra), the accused was Criminal Revision No.1205 of 2005 3 .. convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The sentence was reduced to the undergone period, that is, 10 days, by this Court. 10. The authorities cited are of direct import and same grounds were taken into consideration. 11. The numerous grounds taken cumulatively, particularly the age of the petitioner, that is, more than 70 years, are mitigating circumstance so, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but is inclined to reduce the sentence. It is further of the opinion that ends of justice shall be met if the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and orders accordingly. 12. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 14.02.2011 som