1977 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Akbar petitioner was convicted and sentenced under sec tion 304‑A, to two years' R. I. by the learned City Magistrate, Lahore, vide his judgment-dated 31‑10‑1966. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were maintained on appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment-dated 28‑11‑1966. Hence this revision petition admitted on 6‑2‑1967 and the petitioner was released on bail on the same day.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner: caused death W Abdul Latif on 1‑12‑1965 at 8‑30 p. m. near Mochi Gate when the victim way run over by his bus.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself has observed that the: accident took place, as the brakes were unserviceable on account of leakage in the brakes drum. Therefore if an accident takes place due to some mechanical defect in the transport, it cannot be said that it so occurred either due to rash or negligent driving or the driver while driving that vehicle took no due care. He has further submitted that the only witness who has implicated the petitioner in this case is Abdul Khaliq alone who stated that the bus was being driven at a fast speed. The other witnesses did not make this allegation against the petitioner. It is also being pointed out that Abdur Rashid (P. W. 5) stated that the petitioner had halted the bus at abut 30 feet from the place of incident and the speed of the bus would not have been more than 20 to 25 miles per hour.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken care of all the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner while he appeared before that Court and has repelled each one of them for good reasons. However, when the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed it was a fresh matter and no extenuating or mitigating circumstances existed at the time, which would have called for some lenient view. This case has been placed before me for the first time after a lapse of eleven years and the petitioner was released on bail ten years back. He has since left service of Government Transport Service and is a patient of T. B. who is marking his time before bell tells for him and he goes before his creator.

5. In view of the special features of this case which were non‑existent at the time of his conviction and also keeping in view that a mechanical; defect is beyond the control of a driver as this could likely occur during' the time the vehicle was already set in motion. Therefore, I reduce the A sentence of the petitioner to that of already undergone by him while dismissing the revision as being without any merits. The petitioner is on bail and he will stand discharged of his bail bonds. Order accordingly