Partly allowed

Mukhtiar Singh v. Pb.State

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2009CRR/404/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the criminal revision petition convicting the petitioner under Sections 279, 338, and 426 IPC for rash driving causing injury. The Court modified the sentence, releasing him on probation for one year subject to a personal bond and conditional payment of Rs. 20,000 compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on probation for one year on personal bond of Rs. 10,000; ordered to pay Rs. 20,000 compensation to injured; sentence resumes upon default.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Pb.State — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Criminal Revision No.404 of 2002 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Revision No.404 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision 19.02.2009

Mukhtiar Singh

...... petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶10

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.Simsi Dhir, A.A.G., Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶12

¶13

A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):

¶14

Vide judgment dated 16.02.1999, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala, convicted the accused-petitioner (herein referred as ‘the petitioner’) under Section 279, 338, 427 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months which was upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide his judgment dated 31.01.2002, hence this petition.

¶15

The allegations against the petitioner are that on 16.04.1998, the petitioner while driving bus No.PB-11K-2984 rashly and negligently, imperilled human life and caused injuries to Inderpal Singh.

¶16

Sufficient evidence has been placed on record in order to establish the charge against the petitioner. Evidence, as led by the prosecution, is without any blemish and the findings of fact, having suffered from any defect, do not call for any interference. Faced with the situation,

¶17

Criminal Revision No.404 of 2002 (O&M) 2

¶18

learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for some leniency in the quantum of sentence.

¶19

Having perused the records of the case, it transpires that the offence was committed in the year 1998. The petitioner appears to have suffered much agony of trial due to the protracted proceedings which remained pending for about 11 years. He has already undergone about 4 months imprisonment out of total sentence. There is nothing to show that he ever repeated the offence.

¶20

Under these circumstances, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence that he is ordered to be released on probation on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year, failing to comply with the terms of bond, he would be ready to serve remaining part of sentence. The petitioner is also ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation to the injured Inderpal Singh, failing which this petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto.

¶21

Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, for compliance.

¶22

February 19, 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) mamta-II JUDGE

Mukhtiar Singh v. Pb.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtiar Singh v. Pb.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Jindal Vs Manjeet Singh

Nafe Singh Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Chanan Singh Vs Parvinder Singh

Lal Chand Vs Vinod Kumar

(O&M) Balwant Rai Naruala Vs Sita Ram Gandhi

Lachhman Singh Vs State of Hy.