Criminal Revision No.171 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.171 of 1998 Date of decision: February 19, 2008 Amar Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.P. Yadav, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Arora, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner, Amar Singh son of Het Ram was nominated as accused in case FIR No.18 dated 05.01.1986 registered at Police Station Butana under Section 279/304-A IPC. It is stated that the petitioner was a driver of bus No.HYM-1488 and due to his rash and negligent driving, he caused death of Isham Singh. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Karnal has convicted Amar Singh under Section 279/304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. Criminal Revision No.171 of 1998 2 Case of prosecution is that on 5th January, 1986, Mohar Singh, ASI, who was heading a police party met Balwant Ram complainant, who stated that he along with Isham Singh deceased were employed in United Rice Mill and during the lunch break, when Balwant Ram complainant along with Sahab Singh was going to Rice Mill, then a bus came from the side of Nilo Kheri and hit Isham Singh, who died at the spot. Sahab Singh, eye-witness appeared as PW-1. The doctor, who conducted autopsy, Dr.S.C.Singla appeared as PW-3. Investigating Officer also deposed regarding the investigation carried. Before the courts below, presence of Sahab Singh was doubted. The learned trial Court and the first appellate Court below found Sahab Singh to be present at the spot and relied upon his testimony. Both the courts below have returned finding that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Mr.Yadav appearing for the petitioner has not been able to assail findings of the courts below. However, he has confined his argument that in the present case, occurrence has taken place on 5th January, 1986. Petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial of more than 22 years. He has further stated that the petitioner has undergone about 18 days of his actual sentence. Petitioner was awarded one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- by the trial Court, whereas his appeal was dismissed. Mr. Yadav has placed reliance upon AP Raju vs State of Orissa, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 675 to say that occurrence has taken place about 15 years ago and therefore, the appellant should be released on probation. He has further placed reliance upon a single Bench decision of this Court in Mann Parkash vs. State of Haryana, 1996-1 RCR (437) and another decision of this Court in Jai Pal vs. State of Haryana, 1996-3 RCR (282) to pray that probation should be Criminal Revision No.171 of 1998 3 granted only on the ground that a protracted trial of 8 years was suffered by the petitioner in that case. Recently, in various cases, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that in the cases of accident, probation should not be granted. The reasoning is that if the probation is granted under the Probation of Offenders Act, conviction will not operate against the petitioner. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that one valuable life has been lost due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. In case, he is released on probation, he will be entitled to all benefits, which will accrue to him as part of his employment. Therefore, taking into consideration aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be met in case sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35000/-. Same shall accrue as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Non deposit of fine by the petitioner shall be considered as dismissal of present revision petition. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 19, 2008. rps