SUDHAKAR PUNA WAGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order of conviction and sentence dated 27th August, 1990 passed on him by the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chopda, convicting the petitioner for commission of the offences and imposing sentence of imprisonment as detailed hereinafter: under section 304 (a) - R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 200, in default R. I. for one month; (b) under section 337, Indian Penal Code - RI for three months and fine of Rs. 200 in default R. I. for 15 days; (c) under sections 3 and 89 read with 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act - fine of Rs. 50/- on each count, in default SI for one week; (d) under section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act -fine of Rs. 500/- in default, SI for 15 days; no separate sentences were awarded for offence punishable under section 279 of Indian Penal Code and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act; the sentences were to run concurrently; and the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amalner, on 12th February, 1998 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that, during the Durga festival, on 10-10-1989, tractor bearing Registration No. MXQ 4474 and its trolley were utilized for the purpose of immersion of idol of Goddess Durga. While returning after immersion ceremony, petitioner allowed 30-40 persons to board the trolley, though the trolley was not to be used for this purpose. He drove the tractor rashly at a high speed on kuccha road. At the time of taking a turn the trolly turned turtle. As a result, one Sudhakar Dattatraya Garud died on the spot; complainant ashok Nikumbh, witness Hiraman Baburao and others who were in the trolley suffered injuries. Complainant (PW1) Ashok Nikumbh lodged report of the incident. On the basis of this report, offence came to be registered against petitioner under sections 279 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. After conclusion of the trial, petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced, as stated earlier.

(3.) The appeal filed at the instance of the petitioner, being Criminal Appeal no. 17/1990 came to be dismissed, confirming order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge. The petitioner has, therefore, invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court.