IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.601 of 2000 Date of Decision 26.03.2010 Krishan Murari ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.T.P.S.Tung, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 08.04.1997, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sultanpur Lodhi, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section337 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 29.12.1994, he while driving the jeep bearing registration No.PBL-999 rashly and negligently struck against the motorcycle bearing registration No.PUV- 8432, as a result of which Harvinder Singh and Sukhdip Singh fell down and received injuries. Consequently, Harvinder Singh died at the spot. Case was registered against the petitioner and investigated. Completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Both the Courts below have returned the findings of fact that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. However, the counsel has submitted that the accident took place per chance, therefore, lenient view may be taken. Heard. The petitioner is a constable in the Punjab Armed Police . The accident appears to have been taken place per chance. The record reveals that he did not repeat the said offence thereafter and nothing has been brought on record by the learned State counsel in order to establish Criminal Revision No.601 of 2000 -2- that he is an habitual offender. Custody certificate, produced today, reveals that he was admitted in the jail at Kapurthala on 18.05.2000 and after extending him benefit of remissions, he was released. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of things that the sentence awarded against him is modified and he could be released on probation. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, order of probation would not amount to any disability on his service career. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, for compliance. 26.03.2010 (A.N.Jindal) mamta-II Judge