High Courts(1995) 01 P&H CK 0115

Lakhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 January 1995 · Citation: (1995) 2 RCR(Criminal) 548

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.H.B.Chalapathi, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 248 of 1987

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 330 words

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

1.

This revisionpetition is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the courts below.

2.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under sections 304A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the accusedpetitioner drove the vehicle bearing No. PBA1217 in a rash negligent manner on 25.7.1983 at about 7.30 a.m. and dashed against a car bearing No. MU8201. In the accident the driver of the car died and other inmates of the car sustained injuries. On the basis of the material placed on the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nawanshahr, convicted the accusedpetitioner for the offences under Sections 304A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1986 in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The latter vide its judgment dated 6.2.1987, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the above revisionpetition.

3.

It is brought to my notice that the petitioner died in March, 1988, after the filing of the present revisionpetition. Therefore, the revisionpetition becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. The power given to the learned counsel also ceases to exist on the death of the petitioner. Even otherwise, I do not find any merits in the revisionPetition. On a careful consideration of material on record, both the Courts concurrently found that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he was responsible for causing the accident which resulted in the death of one person and causing injuries to the inmates of the car. After going through the evidence on record, I do not find any grounds warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The revisionpetition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.