.....caused due to negligent driving of accused, who was driving the vehicle on wrong side and at high speed - further, accused has not raised any defence of mechanical failure of the vehicle due to which accident had taken place - thus, all material facts are sufficient to prove that accused was guilty of commission of offence under sections 279 and 337 of ipc - thus, accused liable to be convicted under said sections however, no evidence available to prove guilty of accused under section 179 of act and so, his acquittal from said charges upheld - accordingly, appeal allowed and impugned order of acquittal of accused from all charges set aside - code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 14, rule 2 [as amended by amending act of 1976]: [v.k. gupta, cj, deepak gupta & surjit singh, jj] preliminary issue of law and fact court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of court held, except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of order 14 where a court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. this course of action is not available to a court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. sub-rule (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the.....order sheetdate order appeal allowed cr. a no. 389 of 200013.11.2007 present :mr. virender kumar verma, additional advocate general, for the appellant;mr. rahul mahajan, advocate, for the respondent/accused.the judgment was pronounced today. the learned counsel were heard on the quantum of sentence. the offence under section 279 ipc is punishable with imprisonment of either description of the term which may extend upto six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both and the offence under section 337 ipc is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.looking into the gravity of the offence, i feel that the ends of justice would be met if the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months and a fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of the same further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one month. it is ordered accordingly.the accused is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve out the sentence, failing which the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law.