Simar Singh Vs. State of Haryana

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of..........had hit smt. rajal devi, as a result of which she died at the spot. trial court relied upon the statements of pw.1 ganga dutt, pw2 suraj bhan and pw3 virender, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him under section 304-a ipc to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. the petitioner was also sentenced under section 279 ipc to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the court of learned additional sessions judge, rohtak.3. record reveal that the petitioner was taken into custody on 8.10.1992 when his appeal was dismissed. he was ordered to be released on bail by this court on 4.11.1992 and thereafter he was released from the jail.4. mr. s.k. rana, advocate, appearing for mr. chander singh, advocate, for the petitioner, states that the petitioner has undergone about one month in jail. occurrence in the present case pertains to year 1987. a period of more than 20 years has lapsed. mr. rana has stated that the petitioner is not a previous convict and has committed no offence during the pendency of revision petition. after 20 years of the occurrence, petitioner, who has undergone one month and has committed no offence in the last 20 years deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. in the last 20 years accused may have fastened himself with many liabilities of the family. therefore, in the present revision petition, the sentence of petitioner is reduced to already undergone. however, fine of rs. 35,000/- is imposed upon him, which shall go as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased smt. rajal devi.5. since all the three witnesses could not be dislodged in cross-examination, therefore, conviction is maintained.non-payment of fine by the petitioner shall be considered as dismissal of the revision petition.6. with these observations, the present revision petition is disposed of.