Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Signh vs State Of Punjab on 11 April, 2023
2023:PHHC:048764
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1157-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 11, 2023
Manpreet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
Present: Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurlal Singh Dhillon, AAG, Punjab.
*****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner was an employee of the erstwhile Punjab
State Electricity Board. On the date of the incident i.e. 28.06.2008, he
was on duty as SSA at Bhalaiana Centre where a 33 KV power house is
located. A complaint was received from one Roor Singh son of Sarban
Singh regarding a transformer set up in his field and it was found that
jumper of 11KV line of Mallan Feeder was required to be repaired.
Thus, supply to Mallan Feeder had to be discontinued. Sukhdev Singh,
Lineman along with Vikas Kumar, Lineman and Bakhtaur Singh,
Assistant Lineman went to carry out the necessary repairs. Permit No.2
had already been obtained by Gopal Singh, Lineman and the petitioner
ANKUR GOYAL
2023.04.11 12:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:048764
CRR-1157-2017 (O&M) [2]
had been informed not to release the supply till the repair was completed.
While Bakhtaur Singh, Assistant Lineman was repairing the jumper,
electricity supply was released resulting in his death. Thus, FIR No.35
dated 28.06.2008 was registered at Police Station Kotbhai, under Section
304-A IPC.
2. The petitioner was tried and was convicted vide judgment of
conviction dated 06.03.2014 and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period
of two years and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the legal heirs of
the deceased within six months failing which he had to undergo further
imprisonment for a period of one month. Appeal against the said
judgment was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.02.2017 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. Thus, the present revision petition
was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that deceased
Bakhtaur Singh was not authorized to climb a transformer being an
Assistant Lineman. By doing so, he had violated the rules and thus, the
conviction of the petitioner was illegal. Moreover, an inquiry had been
conducted by the department in which the petitioner was exonerated. This
important evidence has been ignored by the Courts below. There is also
evidence on record by way of affidavit of one Gopal Singh that the permit
issued for carrying necessary repairs and for discontinuance of electricity
supply had been cancelled before release of electricity. This has also been
ignored by the Courts below on account of which miscarriage of justice has
taken place. The petitioner has already undergone more than six months of
ANKUR GOYAL
2023.04.11 12:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:048764
CRR-1157-2017 (O&M) [3]
actual custody and there is no other case pending/decided against him. In
view of these submissions, the revision petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Learned State counsel has supported the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence.
5. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Court shows that the
arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have already been
considered and rejected by it. No error has been pointed out in the findings
of the Appellate Court. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, evidence
cannot be re-appreciated and thus, the findings of the Appellate Court do
not call for any interference.
6. The argument regarding one Gopal Singh having given an
affidavit that the permit had been cancelled before release of electricity
also cannot be accepted because learned counsel is not sure whether the
said affidavit was ever produced on record and was brought to the notice of
the Courts below.
7. No argument has been raised regarding reduction in the
quantum of sentence. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner
is a first offender and that death has been caused in the line of duty, the
ends of justice would be duly served if his sentence is reduced. It also
needs to be borne in mind that the petitioner must be having a family who
are being adversely affected on account of his incarceration. Also, there
was really no criminal intent involved and criminal proceedings were
initiated only because the action amounted to an offence in law. Keeping
all these factors in view, the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment
ANKUR GOYAL
2023.04.11 12:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:048764
CRR-1157-2017 (O&M) [4]
for a period of one year. The rest of the sentence imposed by the trial
Court is maintained.
8. The petition is partly allowed in the aforementioned terms.
9. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed
of.
April 11, 2023 (SUDHIR MITTAL)
'Ankur Goyal' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
ANKUR GOYAL
2023.04.11 12:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
