CHANDER PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON April 29, 2005, PW -Navdeep Kaur, accompanied by a few others, was travelling by a Qualis Car bearing registration No. PB 29 D 2966, from Moga to village Cheema Khuddi in district Gurdaspur. At or around 00.30 a.m. on April 30, 2005, when this car had reached a little ahead of village Pachranga towards Bhogpur, a Tata sumo, bearing registration No. HR 08C 6775, while being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Qualis Car after hitting a truck going ahead of it. Occupants of the Qualis and Tata Sumo received multiple grievous injuries which claimed lives of eight passengers travelling in the said vehicles. PW4 -Navdeep Kaur made a statement, Exhibit PA, before the police whereupon First Information Report (FIR) No.50 dated 30.04.2005 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code came to be recorded at Police Station Bhogpur.

(2.) AFTER conclusion of investigation, final report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) was presented before the jurisdictional magistrate and trial ensued, which resulted into conviction of the petitioner and he was awarded various terms of imprisonment and fine by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Class -I, Jalandhar vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated March 16, 2011. Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2013 brought by the petitioner to challenge judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated March 16, 2011, was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 11.12.2013.

(3.) SCOPE of Section 401 of the Code has attracted attention of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various cases and the view that has consistently held the field is that this provision confers upon this Court a supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some underserved hardship to individuals but where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order and the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible. It should suffice to refer only to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Jagannath Choudhary and Ors. Versus Ramayan Singh and Anr., 2002 (3) ACR 2174(SC), AIR 2002 SC 2229, 2002 (2) ALD (Cri) 63, 2002 (2) ALT (Cri) 91, 2002 (4) ALT 5(SC), 2002 (2) BLJR 1265, 2002 CriLJ 2945, 2002 (2) Crimes 409(SC), (2002) 3GLR 2743, JT 2002 (Suppll) SC 139, 2003 (1) KLT 400 (SC), 2002 (4) SCALE 492, (2002) 5SCC 659, [2002] 3 SCR 936, 2002 (2) UC