Sanjeev Sachdeva JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 27.02.2017 whereby the appeal of the petitioner impugning order on conviction dated 28.10.2015 has been dismissed, however the order on sentence dated 08.11.2015 has been modified.
2. Petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court of the offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for the period of 18 months under Section 304A IPC.
3. The Appellate Court, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, considering mitigating circumstances and also the family condition of the petitioner, while upholding the order on conviction, modified the order on sentence and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 days and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 months for the offence under Section 304A IPC, instead of 18 months.
4. The Appellate Court additionally directed that the driving licence of the petitioner shall stand cancelled and debarred him from obtaining any driving licence throughout his life and directed that no fresh driving licence shall be issued to him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone the entire sentence; however, he is impugning the order of the Appellate Court, in so far as it directs the cancellation of the driving licence of the petitioner and debars him from obtaining any driving licence throughout his life.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a driver and is the sole bread earner of his family having dependent children and wife. It is submitted that the petitioner survives and earns his livelihood by driving only.
7. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has a good case on merits in so far as the offence is considered, however as he has already undergone the entire sentence, he is restricting his prayer to impugning the direction with regard to cancellation of the license and the debarment from obtaining a fresh licence.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Appellate Court committed a grave error in as much as no direction for cancellation of license was issued by the Trial Court and no such direction could be issued by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner and the direction for cancellation of license is an additional punishment and amounts to enhancement of sentence and is contrary to the powers of the Appellate Court under Section 386 Criminal Procedure Code.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the cancellation of license is beyond the powers conferred on the court by Section 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He submits that power has been vested only in the Licensing Authority under Section 19 of the Act to cancel a license or disqualify a person from obtaining a license and the power conferred on the Court under Section 20 of Act is to disqualify for a limited period.
10........