Criminal Revision No.1683 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1683 of 2002 Date of Decision:27.03.2009 Sardool Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against judgment dated 11.7.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby he reduced the rigorous imprisonment to one year under Section 304-A while maintaining the substantive sentence awarded under Section 279 of IPC by modifying the judgment/ order of sentence dated 25.1.2000 rendered by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Sardool Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 304-A of IPC and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The facts in brief are that on 9.10.1997, Constable Swinder Criminal Revision No.1683 of 2002 -2- Singh was performing his duties along with Punjab Home Guard, Madan Lal at Bus Stand Rayya. Around 8:30 A.M., a bus bearing registration No.B-12A-8131 Depot No.1 of Punjab Roadways Amritsar came from Jalandhar side being driven by Sardool Singh accused in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and crushed to death a pedestrian who was going on his left side of the road from Bus Stand Rayya towards City Rayya. Later on, the name of the deceased was learnt to be Vinod Kumar son of Suraj Parkash Bindra resident of New Delhi. On receipt of information of this accident from aforesaid Constable, the FIR was registered. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence. He did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/ sentence, he preferred appeal which was dismissed as noted supra. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, he has filed this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed conviction in any manner. On appraisal of the entire evidence on record, it transpires that Criminal Revision No.1683 of 2002 -3- no view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below is warranted on the given evidence. Consequently, the conviction is upheld. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner made a miseri- cordious submission that the revision petitioner being in service, having his wife and children to support may be released on probation of good conduct. I have given a thoughtful consideration to this submission. He has placed reliance upon the judgments Ram Pal v. State of Punjab, 2006 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 784, Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 834, Chuni Lal v. State of Haryana, 2006(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 844 and Roshan Lal v. State of Punjab, 2006(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 795. As transpires from the record, the accident took place wayback in 1997. The petitioner has been facing the agony of trial for the past more than 11 years. He is a first offender. He was admitted to bail by this Court on 7.7.2003. He is on bail for the last more than 5 years. In re: Chuni Lal (supra), this Court was pleased to observe that the accused may be released on probation in a case under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 IPC on the following grounds: (i) Having remained on bail for a sufficiently long period, (ii) Accused not a previous convict and did not indulge in any criminal activity during the post conviction period, (iii) Faced agony of trial for a considerable long period, and (iv) being the sole bread earner. In re: Rohan Lal (supra), which was also the case under Section 304-A of IPC, the occurrence was 17 years old and the accused was released on probation by this Court. Further in re: Santokh Singh (supra), Criminal Revision No.1683 of 2002 -4- which was also a case under Section 304-A of IPC, the incident was 17 years old and the accused remained in custody for 15 days. He was also ordered to be released on probation by this Court. In re: Ram Pal (Supra), which was also a case under Section 304-A of IPC, this incident was 16 years old and the accused had remained on bail for more than 13 years and was a first convict. He was also ordered to be released on probation by this Court. Harking back to the facts of the current case, there is nothing on the record to show that the accused- petitioner ever misused the concession of bail. As is borne out from the record, he remained in custody for a period of one month and 20 days. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner, who is the sole bread winner of his family is sent to the prison to undergo actual sentence of imprisonment, it will ruin the entire family. The next kins of the deceased Vinod Kumar can still be compensated Under the above-mentioned circumstances and by placing abundant reliance upon the observations made in the authorities sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it a fit case, where benefit of probation should be given. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on probation for a period of two years under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bonds shall be furnished within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. During his probation period, he will keep the peace and be of good behaviour. However, he will come and receive sentence as and when required by the Court. He shall deposit Criminal Revision No.1683 of 2002 -5- Rs.10,000/- as compensation to be paid to Suraj Parkash Bindra, Agent, India Convener Company, Delhi, father of the deceased or next kins of the deceased. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads in the following terms:- “12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction. -- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.” The word “disqualification” used in Section 12 ibid is stated to mean “making someone enough for something” and hence disqualification attaching to revision petitioner's conviction cannot be made the basis of his dismissal from service. In re: Iqbal Singh v. Inspector General of Police and others, AIR 1970 Delhi 240, their lordships have observed as under:- “16. Section 12 of the Act uses the word “disqualification” and the meaning given to this word in Webster's Third New International Dictionary is:- “(i) the act of disqualifying or the state of being disqualified” (protesting his disqualification from office under the new law); (ii) “something that disqualifies or incapacitates” Criminal Revision No.1683 of 2002 -6- (A crime conviction is automatically a disqualification for that public office).” The word “disqualify” is also stated to mean – making someone unfit for something. The further meaning given is that the person may be deprived within the meaning of the word “disqualify” of any right or privilege. We are of the view that the words “disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence” as used in Section 12 of the Act would include a person's losing his right or qualification to remain or to be retained in service. Section 12 of the Act, clearly saves the convict from suffering such disqualification attaching to his conviction. In respect of his conviction, the petitioner had the protection of Section 12 and he was saved from suffering any disqualification such as the one which resulted in his dismissal.” In view of the above observations, petitioner's having been released on probation of good conduct, his conviction shall not be a hurdle in his way to get the retiral benefits or other service benefits. March 27, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No