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
3 paragraphs · 192 wordsS.S. Nijjar, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued the revision petition on merit. He has, however, submitted that the accident took place on 20.1.1977. Therefore, the petitioner has been facing criminal proceedings spanning over 25 years. It is further stated that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for a period of about six weeks during the pendency of the trial and the appeal. At the time of accident, the petitioner was 38 years of age. He is, therefore, at present 63 years of age. It is further stated that the accident, on the basis of which the present criminal prosecution was launched, is the only accident in which the petitioner has been involved. As a result of conviction, the petitioner has lost the job as a driver. He no longer drives any motor vehicle. It is submitted that at this stage, the petitioner may be spared from being sent to prison.
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergoing by him.
With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, revision petition is dismissed.