- (1.) IN the light of judgment dated 12.3.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and order of sentence of even date, the petitioner stands convicted for the offences under Sections 279/337/338/304 -A of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded sentence in the following terms: U. Section 279 of IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with a Fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine the accused shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. U. Section 337 of IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with a Fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine the accused shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. U. Section 338 of IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with a Fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine the accused shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. U. Section 304 -A of IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a Fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine the accused shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 12.12.2013. Conviction of the petitioner has been upheld but the sentence awarded by the trial Court for offence under Section 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code has been reduced from rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to ten months.
(3.) THE present revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. It would be apposite to notice that at the stage of preliminary hearing itself, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that he is not pressing the revision petition and does not assail the conviction on merits and confined the scope of the revision petition only as regards consideration of some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Notice of motion order dated 29.1.2014 reads in the following terms: "It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press this revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court is concerned. However, he requests that petitioner deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Notice of motion qua quantum of sentence only for 3.3.2014." Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been facing trial since 2007 and is the sole bread earner of the family and is a driver by profession. Learned counsel would submit that the entire family is solely dependent upon income of the petitioner and under such mitigating circumstances, a lenient view be taken on the issue of quantum of sentence.;