DAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 7.2.1994, passed in Cri. Appeal No. 1 of 7.2.1994. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the petitioner drove a matador van at a higher speed in a rash and negligent manner on 26.4.1989 and caused an accident resulting, in the death of one Bhag Ram son of Ram Chand. On a complaint given by Rasala Ram, a case was registered against the accused in F.I.R. No. 93 dated 26.4.1989 for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A; IPC. After completion of the investigation, the S.H.O. Police Station Sangrur filed a charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur. On the basis of the material placed before him the learned Magistrate Sangrur framed charges against the accused for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked documents. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC, sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, imposed by the learned Magistrate, by his judgment dated 28.10.1993, the appellant filed an appeal on 5.2.1994 before the Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal on 7.2.1994 without registering the same on the ground that the appeal was time-barred, as no sufficient cause was shown to condone delay in filing the appeal and accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate on the accused-appellant stood confirmed. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal as time-barred, the petitioner filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused was already in jail for a period of two months and therefore, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone. He further contended that the petitioner has found sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by time.

(3.) THE evidence on record clearly shows that one person died in the accident and it also shows that the accused was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. The accused was sentenced to undergo nine months' imprisonment only for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and the sentence under Section 279 is directed to run concurrently. In these circumstances, I am not able to reduce the sentence. The revision petition therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.