The main legal point established is the application of Section 304-A, IPC in cases of negligent driving leading to fatal accidents, and the court's discretion to modify sentences based on the circumstances of the case.

Amar Dutt, J.

1. Santokh Singh aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal vide order dated 12.10.1991 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar has filed the present revision to challenge the conviction under Section 304-A, IPC and sentence recorded by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar vide order dated 24.7.1990 whereby he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The circumstances leading to the prosecution of the petitioner are that on 26.11.1986 at about 7.30 A.M. Mohinder Pal deceased along with his brother Charan Dass PW-3 was going to purchase milk towards Telephone Exchange situated within the area of Katra Sher Singh, Amritsar. When they reached near Dharamshala of Parjapat Baradari, a truck came from the opposite side, which was driven by the petitioner. It was being driven with excessive speed and in a negligent manner. The petitioner had brought the truck towards his extreme right hand side with the result that its right wheel hit Mohinder Pal and crushed him. After the accident, the driver sped away from the spot in his vehicle. The vehicle was chased by Dharam Singh on his scooter and he was able to intercept the same near the speed breaker by the side of D.A.V. College, Amritsar. The driver of the vehicle was brought back at the spot by Dharam Singh, where the police had already reached. The driver, who was eventually identified as petitioner was arrested by the police. On the basis of statement of Charan Dass, an FIR was recorded and on completion of investigation, a challan was submitted against Santokh Singh. On going through the papers sent up with the challan, the Addl. Chief Magistrate, Amritsar had framed charge against the petitioner under Section 304-A, IPC and when he pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence.

3. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses and when statement of Santokh Singh was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied all the circumstances and asserted as under :-

"I do not know why the witnesses deposed against me. I have no enmity with the police. I was lying sleep in the house of Gurdial Singh my relative near Shivla Mandir. The truck was outside his house. One Head Constable and two Constables came on motor cycles. They said to me that sand was to be brought on my truck and when I refused to oblige them they took the truck and me and foisted this case."

In defence, petitioner examined Gurdial Singh as DW-1 and Sarwan Singh as DW- 2.

4 The trial Court after hearing the arguments rejected the defence version and convicted Santokh Singh under Section 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

5. This conviction and sentence was challenged in appeal by Santokh Singh before the Sessions Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Amritar after adverting to the entire evidence that have been brought on record came to the conclusion that there was no scope for interference with the order of the trial Court. He also rejected the prayer of the petitioner for being given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and dismissed the appeal. Hence, Santokh Singh has come up in revision.

6. I have heard Mr. P.S. Hundal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Dhillon, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance have gone through the record.

7. On behalf of the petitioner, two circumstances have been relied upon for seeking modification of the sentence imposed upon him. Firstly, it had been urged that the petitioner had already undergone 4-1/2 months of the substantive sentence of imprisonment out of one year, which had been impo