SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11. 5. 2000 passed by Additional Session Judge, Pali in criminal appeal no. 23/99 whereby he has dismissed the appeal against the order of conviction but modified the order of sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sojatcity in criminal original case no. 177/97 as under:- (1) Reduced the sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1, 000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1, 000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment u/s. 279 IPC. (2) Reduced the sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment u/s. 337 IPC. (4) Reduced the sentence of one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1, 000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1, 000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment u/s. 338 IPC. (4) Reduced the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months' simple imprisonment to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months' simple imprisonment u/s. 304-A IPC.
(2.) BOTH the Courts below have concurrently found that the petitioner accused drove his truck no. RJ. 22 G 0346 in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of jeep driver Daula Ram who was coming from the opposite side on 16. 4. 1997 at 5:45 P. M. Due to this accident, Daula Ram, Heerji and complainant Rafiq received injuries and thereafter, Daula Ram died during treatment. On 18. 8. 2000, this revision was admitted and the record from the courts below was called. On a close scrutiny of the record and the reasons assigned by the courts below for convicting the accused for the aforesaid offence, it cannot be said that the courts below have committed any error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I. P. C. However, Mr. Upadhyay tried to submit that looking to the Mauka report, it is not possible to infer that the accused driver to the truck was negligent. As per the evidence of the prosecution, the jeep driver took his jeep on one side seeking the truck coming from opposite side and it is so, then it is not possible to do the accident in the manner in which it is alleged. This is a case where not only there is direct evidence against the accused but the circumstances are also such which speak for itself. It was a single road and the manner in which and the speed at which the truck was driven, it was sufficient to hold that the accident occured due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck, wherein one person lost his life and two others have received serious injuries. In view of the above discussion, this revision petition has to be dismissed.
(3.) BEFORE parting, I must state that the learned Trial Magistrate has rightly awarded maximum sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment to the petitioner accused for offence u/s. 304-A I. P. C. by observing that this type of cases are increasing day by day, therefore, maximum sentence should be awarded. He rightly refused probation as it has been held by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court that in this type of cases, probation should not be given. However,in appeal, the learned Additional Session Judge, Pali for practically no reasons reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioner to a mere sentence of one year's simple imprisonment for major offence u/s. 304-A I. P. C. For reducing the sentence, he has only stated that. *** This is no reasoning at all for reducing the sentence. In fact, this Court has taken a view in case of Ganpat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1), that though the maximum sentence of 2 years R. I. is provided the Court in ordinary circumstances should impose two years R. I. only. It is unfortunate that our subordinate Judges do not read the law reporters. This is not a way in which the court should interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial court inspite of the judgments of this Court. If the court impose linient sentence or the appellate court interferes with the same, then it would be a prima-facie case of contempt. This should be impressed upon one and all in the subordinate judiciary. A copy of this judgment may be kept in the service book of Mr. M. L. Gaur, Additional Sessions Judge, Pali. ;