Crl.Revision No.1433 of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No.1433 of 2001
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 06, 2009
Zakir Hussain
.....PETITIONER
Versus
State of Haryana
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
---
Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.A.K.Rathee, AAG, Haryana.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
Zakir Hussain petitioner has been convicted for the offence
under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Nuh vide judgment dated 28.8.2000 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC and one year
under Section 304-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the said
judgment, he filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurgaon, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.09.2001 and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court were
affirmed. Against that judgment, the petitioner has filed the present revision
petition.
Crl.Revision No.1433 of 2001 -2-
In this case, the alleged accident had taken place on 8.6.1998
with the bus, which was being driven by the petitioner in which six persons
died. As per the prosecution case, the said accident had taken place due to
rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. In order to prove its case, the
prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses, including PW1-Hussaina
and PW3-Smt.Akbari, who were injured in the said accident.
The trial Court after taking into consideration the material
available on the record and the evidence led by the prosecution and the
defence, convicted the accused and sentenced him, as indicated above. With
the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the State, I have gone through the judgments of the Courts
below as well as the record of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a
position to challenge the judgment of conviction on merits. However, on the
question of sentence, learned counsel argued that out of one year sentence,
the petitioner had already undergone actual sentence of 7 months and 26
days. He further submitted that since January, 2002 the petitioner is on bail.
He has already suffered protracted trial for the last 10 years. He further
stated that the petitioner has a big family, and he is the only bread earner of
his family. He further stated that the petitioner is also not a previous convict
and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in requiring him to undergo
the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. In these facts and
circumstances, even learned counsel for the respondent-State has not
strongly objected if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner
is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the
Crl.Revision No.1433 of 2001 -3-
parties on the quantum of sentence, I am of the view that no useful purpose
will be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage when he has
already undergone more than seven months of actual sentence and is on bail
since January, 2002. I have been informed that the petitioner has undergone
7 months and 26 days of actual sentence and if the remissions availed by the
petitioner are to be added, then he has to go inside the jail only for near-
about two months. Thus, keeping in view the said fact and the facts that he
has already suffered protracted trial for the last 10 years; he has to support a
big family, as he is the only bread earner in the family; and he is also not a
previous convict, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified and
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
With this modification in the sentence, the criminal revision is
dismissed.
February 06, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE