HARJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, read with Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for recalling the order dated 19.03.09, passed by this Court, in Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000, has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner, filed a revision-petition, against the judgement and order dated 24.07.2000, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which, it partly accepted the appeal, thereby reducing the substantive sentence, awarded to him (petitioner), to 1 year, from 1 = years, for the offence, punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, against the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 17.09.99, rendered by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide which, it convicted the accused (petitioner), to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of four months, for the offence, punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and further sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 1 1/2 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-, for the offence, punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three months. It was stated that the revision-petition, was dismissed, by this Court. It was stated that during the course of arguments, the Amicus-Curiae, who was appointed by this Court, could not bring to the notice of the Court, that a compromise, had already been arrived at, between the legal heirs of the deceased and the revision-petitioner in the year 1999. It was further stated that the compromise deed was not placed, on record, at that time. It was further stated that though the offences, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, were not compoundable, yet, in the interest of justice, the same be permitted to be compounded, by recalling the order dated 19.03.09, passed by this Court, in Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the Counsel engaged by the petitioner, in the revision-petition, did not appear, and this Court, appointed an Amicus-Curiae, who could not bring the factum of compromise, between the legal representatives of the deceased, and the accused, which had already been arrived at, in the year 1999. She further submitted that, according to the compromise, the accused, was held liable to pay Rs. 50,000/-, as damages, to the legal representatives of the deceased. It was further submitted that the compromise, was duly signed and thumb marked by the legal representatives of the deceased and the accused, as also the witnesses. It was further submitted that, even the legal representatives of the deceased, got compensation, from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in MACT No. 77 of 1993, which petition, was decided on 04.05.98. She further submitted that the judgement passed, in the revision-petition, be recalled and the same (revision-petition) be reheard.