Muhammad Akram, petitioner, was tried under section 304-A, P.P.C. For causing tic; death of Sajjad Mehmood by rash and negligent driving. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 4 witnesses in proof of the charge against him.
Sikandar, F.W.1, Muhammad Abbad, P.W.2, Muhammad Saleem, P.W.3 and Majeed Baig S.I. P.W.4 have supported the allegations against the petitioner. Dr. Khalid Mehmood, had conducted post- mortem examination on the dead body of Sajjad Mehmood. After the conclusion of the prosecution case, the petitioner pleaded guilty. So the trial Court sentenced him till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.1,500. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed revision for the enhancement of the sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, vide his order dated 9-3-1989 enhanced the sentence from imprisonment till rising of the Court to imprisonment for one year R.I.
The fine imposed by the trial Court was also maintained. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge for the enhancement of sentence, the petitioner filed criminal revision in this Court. Since no revision lies against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge under section 439-A, Cr.P.C., therefore, the revision was allowed to be treated as writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentence has been enhanced without justification. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel that the prosecution evidence was quite satisfactory. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity in the statements of prosecution witnesses. In fact the petitioner had not filed any appeal against his conviction under section 304-A, P.P.C. And had confessed his guilt. Since Sajjad Mehmood lost life as a result of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of one year's R.I. Is neither harsh nor excessive. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rather shown leniency in the matter of sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not flouted any provision of law. He has not violated the law laid down by the superior Courts.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere, in exercise of the Constitutional powers of this Court with the well B reasoned order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.