Pankaj And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 November, 2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CRR No. 1971 of 2009 (O/M).
                                      Date of Decision : November 16, 2009.

Pankaj and another
                                                             ...... Petitioner(s).
                                 Versus.

State of Haryana and another
                                                           ..... Respondent(s).

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:-    Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate,
             for the petitioner (s).


AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

             The     present revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioners, challenging the order dated 11.03.2008, passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, vide which the accused-

respondent has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court of the charges

levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that the driver of the bus

should have been much careful, while driving his vehicle as it is a heavy

vehicle and always have a dominant position on the road. The accident took

place was on the scooter. The evidence has come on record, which clearly

shows that the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle at high speed and

that too rashly and negligently. He relies upon the statement of eye witnesses

PW4 Sukhbir Singh and PW5 Pankaj. He further contends that the learned

Trial Court also mentions the vehicle to be at high speed, keeping in view the

fact that there were skidding marks on the impact of brakes, applied by driver

of the bus. He on this basis prays that this Court should interfere in the case
CRR No. 1971 of 2009. -2-

in hand as the acquittal granted to the accused-respondent by the learned

Trial Court cannot be sustained.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have gone through

the records of the case.

The learned Trial Court has fully appreciated the evidence,

which has been brought on record. All aspects with regard to the condition

of vehicle, place of impact, nature of evidence, which has been led by the

parties, have been duly considered and on consideration of the same, the

learned Trial Court has given benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent

(driver of the bus). There is no illegality in the findings, which have been

recorded by the learned Trial Court, which would call for any interference by

this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, which is restricted in its

powers exercised by this Court. The opinion, which has been formed by the

learned Trial Court, is fully justified on the basis of records and evidence

placed on record for its perusal.

Finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same

stands dismissed.

CRM No. 37580 of 2009.

In the light of the order passed herein above, no order is

required to be passed in the application for condonation of delay.

Dismissed.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
November 16, 2009.

sjks.