Cr. Revision No.1717 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr. Revision No.1717 of 2003 Date of decision : April 15, 2009 Achhar Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana. A.N. JINDAL, J. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 11-8-2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner (herein referred as the petitioner) against the judgment dated 21-2-2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 279 IPC to undergo RI for six months and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 337 IPC. Factual matrix comprising the prosecution case is that on 8-5-98 Harsharan Singh, complainant was travelling from Delhi towards Chandigarh by his car bearing No.CH-02-0502 along with his wife Jatinder Kaur. At about 4.00 PM. when he reached the Red Cr. Revision No.1717 of 2003 -2- Light Chowk, Panipat, he had to be stopped because of red traffic light. Then suddenly the petitioner, while driving the truck bearing No.HP-20-8266 rashly and negligently, came from behind and struck into the car as a result of which he received injuries and the car was also damaged. Consequently, the aforesaid case was registered, investigated and challan was presented in the Court. The petitioner was charged u/s 279/337 IPC to which he denied and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined 8 witnesses including Prithvi Singh ASI, Investigating Officer of the case. The petitioner was also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations and pleaded false implication. The trial ended into conviction so as the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. At the very outset, the counsel for the petitioner has urged that the case was result of misjudgment. The complainant did not suffer any injury as such some leniency may be extended on the quantum of sentence. Having pondered over the arguments, occurrence appears to have taken place about 11 years back. No medical evidence revealing the injuries on the person of the complainant has been proved on the record. On account of the pendency of the proceedings since long the sword of sentence remained hanging over the head of the petitioner as such he appears to have suffered a lot. Cr. Revision No.1717 of 2003 -3- In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is observed that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is extended the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Resultantly petition being unmerited is hereby dismissed with the modification of the sentence to the extent that the petitioner is extended the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour within the aforesaid period of one year and in case of breach of conditions of bond, he would be ready to serve the remaining part of the sentence. Failing to comply with the order within 4 months, this petition shall be treated as dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to CJM, Panipat for compliance. (A.N. JINDAL) April 15, 2009 JUDGE manju