Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/595/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 595 of 2009
=========================================================
MAYUR
UMIYASHANKAR VYAS - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ROHIT S VERMA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 07/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated
27.02.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad
as confirmed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad
by his judgment and order dated 15.07.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.58 of 2009.
Petitioner
was involved in vehicular accident. On 18.03.2002 in the early
morning hours at about 4.00 A.M. by driving his rickshaw negligently
and rashly, he caused the accident with scooterist who received
injuries including fracture. For such act, he was prosecuted for
offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act also. Learned Magistrate found him
guilty and awarded simple imprisonment of three months and also
imposed fine of Rs.500/-.
I
have heard learned advocate for the parties and having perused the
judgments under challenge and other documents, I am of the opinion
that though so far as the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty
of the offences is concerned, no interference is necessary. There was
evidence on record that the petitioner was driving his rickshaw and
that due to rash and negligent driving accident was caused. However,
I am of the opinion that at this distant point of time nearly eight
years after the incident, it is not necessary to send the petitioner
to jail. Mitigating factors are as follows:
(1) Nearly
eight years has passed since the accident.
(2) Nature
of injuries is not serious.
(3) Petitioner
is not involved in any other offence.
(4) He
is prepared to pay compensation which may go to the injured.
Under
the circumstances, I am of the opinion that though conviction may be
sustained, petitioner is required to be extended benefit of probation
and suspension of sentence.
Under
the circumstances, though the order of conviction is maintained, such
sentence is suspended. Petitioner shall be on probation for a period
of one year. He shall execute a bond of good behaviour before the
trial court. During the period of probation if any breach is
committed by the petitioner, he shall have to serve out the sentence.
Additionally, he shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) to the injured which shall be in addition to any compensation
that might have been paid to him. This shall be done within eight
weeks from today.
Petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )
kailash
Top