AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 223 wordsS.S. Nijjar, J.—None is present for the petitioner although notice is said to have been received by the wife of the petitioner.
I have perused the paper book as also the record with the assistance of learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for the accident which took place on 25.8.1984. Since then the petitioner has been facing protracted criminal litigation. From the record, it becomes apparent that the petitioner had undergone a period of two months imprisonment. At the time of accident, the petitioner was 52 years of age. He would now be an old person. The trial Court has also noticed some mitigating circumstances. After the accident, the petitioner stopped the bus, put the victim in it and carried the victim to the hospital for immediate medical treatment. he is a first offender. The petitioner has a large family. He is the only earning member of the family. He has also lost the job in the Haryana Roadways. At this stage, it would not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner to prison.
In view of the above, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, revision petition is dismissed.