Criminal Revision No.816 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 816 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 22, 2009 Surjit Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Surinder Garg,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Surjit Singh petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 19.12.2005 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bathinda. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Bathinda vide judgment dated 4.4.2008 . Hence, the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No.816 of 2008 2 The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- "Adumbrated in brief the facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 16.1.2002 ASI Rajbir Singh received a QST to the effect that Dalip Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh and Tehal Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh have died in road accident, whereas one Lachhmi Devi wife of Neelu Ram is admitted in Civil Hospital Bathinda regarding the same accident. On receipt of this QST ASI Rajbir Singh alongwith other police officials reached Civil Hospital Bathinda and recorded the statement of Baldev Singh to the effect that `he is resident of V.Kot Shamir. On 16.1.2002 his brother Tehal Singh and his mother Dalip Kaur were going on scooter No.CH-01-1612 from V.Kot Shamir towards Bhucho to meet their relation. At about 11.30 a.m. when Tehal Singh reached near link road from V.Kartar Singh Wala, the accused came from the side of Bathinda by driving bus bearing registration No.PB-03G-4158 rashly and negligently and at a high speed without blowing any horn and hit against the scooter, as a result of which his brother Tehal Singh and his mother Dalip Kaur were crushed. He further stated that Tehal Singh his brother died on the spot, whereas his mother Dalip Kaur received serious injuries. One Lachhmi Devi wife of Lilu Ram R/o V.Udang of Distt. Mukatsar, who was travelling in the bus, also received injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by him and Sukhdev Singh Ex.Sarpanch. The dead body of his brother Tehal Singh and of his mother Dalip Kaur along with Lachhmi Devi were Criminal Revision No.816 of 2008 3 brought by the police to the civil hospital,Bathinda”. On the basis of this statement ruqa was sent and FIR was registered. Spot was inspected. Rough site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of necessary formalities, challan against the appellant was presented” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not a previous convict. Petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of four months and sixteen days . A compromise was also effected between the parties on 24.4.2008. In fact, the scooterist had emerged on the main road from the slip way. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner may be ordered to be released on probation by giving him the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act,1958. Learned State counsel filed the custody certificate today in Court and the same is taken on record. 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.. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a fit case where the petitioner is liable to be released on probation. Petitioner is not the previous convict, Petitioner has committed an offence under Sections 304-A,279 IPC and both the said offences are bailable. Petitioner has got a family to support. Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts and benefit of probation can neither be granted or declined as a Criminal Revision No.816 of 2008 4 matter of rule. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner as ordered by the Courts below under Sections 279 and 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 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 costs of proceedings. The petitioner is directed to furnish the bonds within one month from today, failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge May 22,2009 arya