CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 454 OF 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 02, 2009. Parties Name State of Haryana ...PETITIONER VERSUS Mahender Singh etc. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. K.S.Godara, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the petitioner-State JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT. State of Haryana has filed this revision petition to lay challenge to the order , passed by the appellate Court on April 27, 2000, vide which sentence awarded to the respondents for commission of offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was modified and they were ordered to be released on probation. It is apparent from the records that FIR No. 417 dated November 24, 1990, was registered against the respondents for commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the allegations that on November 24, 1990, at about 11 AM, they had caused death of Smt. Swaran Kaur wife of Bahadur Singh (PW4) by driving bus bearing No. PB 11- 9076 in a rash and negligent manner. It is necessary to mention here that the CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 454 OF 2001 -2- respondents No. 1 and 2 were working as Driver and Conductor respectively on the above said bus. It was case of the prosecution that deceased Swaran Kaur was in the process of stepping down from the bus. Without waiting for the same, the conductor blew the whistle and Driver started the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted into death of Swaran Kaur named above. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, convicted and sentenced both the respondents for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. They went in appeal and vide the impugned judgment dated April 27, 2000, their appeal was partly allowed. Conviction was upheld. However, sentence was modified and they were ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months. They were further directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during above said period. It was further directed that if they committed any other offence, then they would appear to receive the sentence and undergo remaining period of imprisonment awarded to them. Hence this revision. After hearing the State counsel, this Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere in this case. It is not in dispute that both the appellants were first offenders. They were the only bread winners of the family and if they are sent behind the bars, not only they but their families would also suffer. The appellate Court has rightly observed that instead of punitive, reformatory approach requires to be adopted. If they are sent to Jail at that stage, they are bound to loose their service. In view of above, it is apparent that concession of probation was rightly granted in favour of the respondents, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the revision petition fails and the CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 454 OF 2001 -3- same is dismissed. February 02, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge