IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.44 of 2003 Date of Decision : September 13, 2010 Hem Raj ....Petitoner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC on the allegations that on 2.11.1991 at about 12.30 A.M, he drove tempo bearing No. HIB-2162 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against another tempo bearing registration No. DBL- 9345, which tempo was lying parked as one of its tyres had gone flat. As a result of the accident, the driver of tempo bearing registration No. DBL-9345 received injuries, while the cleaner of tempo No. HIB-2162 died at the spot. Vide judgment and order dated 6.9.2002, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 337 IPC. However, he was convicted under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. He was also Criminal Revision No.44 of 2003 -2- convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences under both the heads were ordered to run concurrently. Against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 29.11.2002 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, except for reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC from 1½ years to one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of his client. However, he has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 19 years. The present revision has remained pending in this Court since the year 2003. Out of the sentence of one year, the petitioner has undergone a period of about 2½ months. The petitioner is not a previous convict and is the sole bread earner of his family. Therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has submitted that on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, one innocent person lost his life and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. Criminal Revision No.44 of 2003 -3- After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment under both the heads is reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine imposed upon the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC, alongwith its default clause, is maintained. However, the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Out of the fine, to be recovered from the petitioner, an amount of Rs.25,000/- be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Hari Dass as compensation. But for the modification in the sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 13, 2010 JUDGE satish