JUDGMENT
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.
1. The petitioner Adam Khan had been convicted Under Section 304A IPC and sentenced to two year’s r.i. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-and he has further been convicted Under Section 279 and sentenced to six months r.i. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence to nine month’s r.i. and a fine of Rs. 200/-Under Section 304A and three month’s r.i. and a fine of Rs. 50/- Under Section 279 IPC. Both the substantive sentences have been made concurrent. The petitioner has come up in revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the convictions of the petitioner but urges that the petitioner may be given benefit Under Section 360 Cr. PC. In view of this contention, I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trial court did not apply its mind so far as the provisions of Section 360 Cr. PC are concerned. The learned Sessions Judge has, of course, referred to this aspect of the matter but he refused probation to the petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act because he was not proved to be 21 years of age on the date of accident and so far as the question of Section 360 Cr. PC was concerned, he was of the opinion that looking to all the circumstances of the case, he was not inclined to grant this benefit to the petitioner. He has, of course, not given any special reasons for refusing this benefit to the petitioner. He further urges that the incident is dated 27-11-1977 the accused even if it, is assumed that he is not below 21 years of age he is a young person as according to the learned courts below, his age was between 21 and 23 that it also appears that there was some breakage in the hydraulic system of the broker of the vehicle and in there circumstances, it would be proper to deal with him Under Section 360 or under the Probation of Offenders Act. It was also contended that that there is no previous conviction against him.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has also not seriously opposed to this contention. Looking to all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted benefit of probation and some compensation may be allowed to the family of the deceased.
4. I therefore, partly allow this revision and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, set aside the sentence awarded to him. He is not sentenced to any punishment hence forthwith shall be released on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 2,500/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner, to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of two years and in the meantime to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour.
5. I further direct that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/-(seven thousand) to the heirs of the deceased Abdul Jabbar and a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of costs of the proceedings.