Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.109 CRR No.3367 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04-10-2021
Manjit Singh ..Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..Respondent
(Heard through Video-Conferencing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Ms. Raina Sabharwal Thakur , Advocate
for the revisionist-petitioner.
Ms. Samina Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent -State.
***
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence as
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar on 03.07.2017,
whereby the revisionist-petitioner (for short "the petitioner") has been held
guilty for committing the offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC
and has been awarded sentence for the same, in the criminal case arisen
out of the FIR bearing No.4 dated 12.01.2013 registered at Police Station
Sadar Kharar, under the above-mentioned provisions as well as the
judgment as rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar,
Mohali on 25.11.2019 dismissing the Criminal Appeal preferred by him
against the said judgment and order on sentence, the petitioner has
preferred the instant revision petition.
1 of 4
........
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the allegations, as
levelled against the petitioner, are that on 12.01.2013, he caused the
accident by driving the bus bearing registration No.PB-11U-6773 and
belonging to the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (for short "the
PRTC") in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, colliding the same
with the Canter bearing registration No.PB-03E-4823 and this accident
resulted in the death of Kulwinder Singh and Janta. After the presentation
of the Challan in the Court, the charge was framed against the petitioner to
which, he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove its allegations against the
petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and
thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
led by the prosecution on the record. In his defence evidence, the
petitioner examined two witnesses and then, after hearing the arguments,
learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment and order on sentence
dated 03.07.2017, held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- for committing the offence under Section 279 IPC and to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of
Rs.2000/- for committing the offence under Section 304-A IPC and also to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine
of Rs.1000/- for committing the offence under Section 427 IPC and all the
sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Criminal Appeal, as
preferred by the petitioner against the above-said judgment and order on
2 of 4
........
sentence, has also been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide the
impugned judgment dated 25.11.2019 while modifying the quantum of
sentence as awarded to him under Section 304-A IPC, by reducing it to the
rigorous imprisonment of one year.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned State counsel in the present revision petition and have also perused
the file thoroughly.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as his name did not find
mention in the FIR and she has also urged that the petitioner has already
undergone the custody for the considerable part of the total period of
imprisonment awarded to him and therefore, his substantive sentence be
reduced to the period of imprisonment as already undergone by him.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that as per the
record of the PRTC, i.e. the employer of the petitioner, he (petitioner) was
assigned the duty to drive the said offending bus on the day of the accident
and the factum of his name having not been mentioned in the FIR, does
not adversely affect the case of the prosecution and moreover, the eye-
witnesses to the said accident have made categoric depositions regarding
the rash and negligent driving of the said offending bus by the petitioner
and therefore, the instant revision petition deserves dismissal.
6. Though, the petitioner has not been nominated as an accused
in the subject FIR but however, it is worthwhile to mention here that in
para No.14 of the impugned judgment handed down by learned Appellate
3 of 4
........
Court, it has clearly been observed that from the Duty-Roster, placed on
the record as Ex.PW13/A, it transpired that the petitioner was driving the
offending vehicle on the fateful day.
7. As regards the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner qua
reducing the sentence, it is pertinent to mention here that learned
Appellate Court has already reduced the sentence of imprisonment from
two years to one year and keeping in view the fact that two persons lost
their life in the accident caused by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined
to further reduce the sentence of imprisonment.
8. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned judgments and the order on sentence handed down by both the
Courts below do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, perversity or
irregularity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. It being so, the
revision petition in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
th
4 October, 2021 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable No
4 of 4
