Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.4.2009 Kikkar Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.H.S.Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) vide judgment dated 12.8.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 2 dated 2.2.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Hence, the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.1993 complainant Gurdev Singh along with driver Bashir Ahmad and Bachan Ram was going on tractor trolley bearing No.PBU 4516 make Eicher. When at about 10/10.30 AM they reached near Anshupati Textile factory, in front of Jagdish Da Dhaba, main road, then a bus bearing No.PB-12-A 9901 of Punjab Roadway Ferozepur Depot being driven by a Sikh gentleman came from the side of Ludhiana at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck the same against his tractor due to which the tractor trolley turned turtle. Behind them one Shiv Kumar of his village was also coming on his moped No.PB-10J-4683 also met with accident and received injuries. The bus was so rash and fast that it became uncontrolled from its driver and also struck against one more person near the Dhaba of Jagdish, who also received injuries. Due to this impact Bashir Ahlamd and Bachan Ram also received injuries and his tractor trolley was also damaged. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver Kikkar Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 3 Singh. On the basis of statement ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which the formal FIR was recorded. During the course of investigation the appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation challan against the accused was presented.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279/304-A IPC awarded by the Courts below, but has submitted that the petitioner be ordered to be released on probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR( Criminal) 328 and Paul George vs. State of NCT of Delhi (SC) 2008 (2)RCR (Criminal) 478. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has, in fact, undergone about 5½ months of actual sentence out of six months of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner was in Government service and was only bread earner of the family. He was facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1993. He was not involved in any other similar offence. The petitioner has to support his old parents and a young daughter, who has been deserted by her husband. The petitioner has only three years of service left to his credit and in case, his sentence qua imprisonment is not set aside, he would lose his job. It was unfortunate that an accident took place which Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 4 resulted in the death of deceased, who was travelling on a moped. The object of releasing an accused on probation is that he may be given an opportunity to reform himself. The benefit of probation can be denied only to hardened criminals or where restriction has been imposed by Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner is not a previous convict and has got a family to support. He has already undergone 5 ½ months of actual sentence out of six months of rigorous imprisonment as ordered by the Courts below. Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts and benefit of probation can neither be granted or declined as a matter of rule. No doubt the cases of accident on the road are increasing tremendously but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be released on probation. The petitioner was driving bus at the time of accident, which struck against a tractor trolly and as a result, Shiv Kumar, who was travelling on a moped suffered injuries. The petitioner is suffering the criminal proceedings since the year 1993. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner as ordered by the Courts below under Sections 279/304-A IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment as imposed by the Courts below is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 5 the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is further directed that the petitioner shall keep peace and will be of good behaviour during the period of probation. The fine deposited by the petitioner be treated as cost of proceedings. The petitioner is directed to furnish the bonds within one month from today, failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE April 01, 2009 anita