IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CRR-622-2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 23.07.2026 Anand Kumar @ Anand Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J. 1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 25.04.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar and judgment dated 27.03.2008 vide which learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar dismissed the appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and order of sentence dated 25.04.2007, whereby the petitioner was convicted for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months apart from fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months. PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-622-2008 (O&M) ( 2 ) 2. The facts in brief are that on 22.3.1999 the complainant Piare Lal along with his brother Prem Lal had gone to attend the marriage of his niece at Jalandhar. On 23.3.1999, the complainant along with his brother Prem Lal stayed at Village Malhilpur, District Hoshiarpur in the in-law’s house of Prem Lal. On 24.3.1999, he along with his brother Prem Lal had boarded the bus of Haryana Roadways, Delhi for going to Delhi which was going from Hoshiarpur to Delhi. The complainant’s brother Prem Lal was sitting on the seat behind the driver seat and the complainant was sitting on the seat of window side. The bus driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed and when the bus after crossing Kharar reached near Kamal Chuna Bhathi, Balo Majra. At about 12.30 PM, the bus driver while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner struck against the half bodied truck bearing Registration No.PB12-C-1193, which was coming from Mohali side. Due to the said impact the truck driver Tilakdhari, Ram Sarup and Ram Sharan who were also sitting in the said truck sustained serious injuries. The complainant’s brother Prem Lal, who was sitting in the bus, also sustained serious injuries and he became unconscious at the spot due to the injuries suffered by him. The other passengers of the bus also sustained injuries. Thereafter, the passengers of the bus took out complainant’s brother Prem Lal from the bus and the injured Tilakdhari, Ram Sarup and Ram Saran were also taken out from the said truck and were sent to PGI Chandigarh after arranging some private vehicle coming from behind. His brother Prem Lal succumbed to his injuries in the way. Thereafter, he came to know that the truck driver Tilakdhari had also succumbed to injuries. The above said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver No.356, whose name he came to know lateron as Anand Kumar son of Mange PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-622-2008 (O&M) ( 3 ) Ram. The above said accident was witnessed by C-Ravinder Kumar posted at Police Station, Mohali. ASI Kulbir Singh after making endorsement on the statement of complainant sent to the Police Station, Kharar through SPO Sikander Singh, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 06 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that having regard to the nature of the offence, the petitioner's clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice. 4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 22.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner as he submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted in the present case based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits. Learned State counsel also submitted that apart from the present case, the petitioner is not involved in any other case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case with their able assistance. 6. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and closed its evidence. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner denied all the PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-622-2008 (O&M) ( 4 ) incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded false implication, which ultimately resulted into conviction. The accused, however, examined one witness in his defence and closed his evidence. 7. As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 1999. At that time, the petitioner was 26 years of age and today he is about 53 years of age, and has already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 27 years. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code for driving rashly and negligently and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of precious human life of two persons. But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the petitioner that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance imparing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simpliciter and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harasher punishment. 9. While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Moreover, the offences are not so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 22.07.2026, the petitioner has already undergone 06 days of the substantive sentence out of the total imposed sentence of nine months rigorous imprisonment. These factors PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-622-2008 (O&M) ( 5 ) deserve due weight while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 10. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering the long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.” 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-622-2008 (O&M) ( 6 ) experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one. 12. The Courts below have maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code and this Court has also gone through the judgments of the Courts below and does not find any infirmity therein. Accordingly the conviction of the petitioner is hereby upheld. The occurrence took place on 23.03.1999 and the petitioner throughout been on bail. This Court is of the view that it would be rather harash to send the petitioner to jail after about 27 years of the occurrence. The interest of justice would be met if the petitioner’s sentence is modified and fine as imposed by learned Trial Court be enhanced. 13. Given the above discussion and without opining on the merits of the case, the present criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the Courts below is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today. On realisation, the said amount shall be disbursed to the legal representatives of the deceased i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the LRs of deceased Prem Lal and Rs.50,000/- to the LRs of deceased Tilakdhari upon proper receipt and identification. 14. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged. PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-622-2008 (O&M) ( 7 ) 15. It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the petitioner will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence. 16. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. 23.07.2026 ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) Pankaj JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment