Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009
Date of decision: 1.4.2009
Kikkar Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.H.S.Bhullar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab
****
SABINA, J.
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under
Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short)
vide judgment dated 12.8.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Ludhiana. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and a
fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and he was further sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a
fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Both the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment
Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 2
dated 2.2.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Hence,
the present revision petition.
The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Appellate
Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:-
“The brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.1993
complainant Gurdev Singh along with driver Bashir
Ahmad and Bachan Ram was going on tractor trolley
bearing No.PBU 4516 make Eicher. When at about
10/10.30 AM they reached near Anshupati Textile factory,
in front of Jagdish Da Dhaba, main road, then a bus
bearing No.PB-12-A 9901 of Punjab Roadway Ferozepur
Depot being driven by a Sikh gentleman came from the
side of Ludhiana at a very high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner and struck the same against his tractor
due to which the tractor trolley turned turtle. Behind them
one Shiv Kumar of his village was also coming on his
moped No.PB-10J-4683 also met with accident and
received injuries. The bus was so rash and fast that it
became uncontrolled from its driver and also struck
against one more person near the Dhaba of Jagdish, who
also received injuries. Due to this impact Bashir Ahlamd
and Bachan Ram also received injuries and his tractor
trolley was also damaged. The accident had taken place
due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver Kikkar
Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 3Singh. On the basis of statement ruqa was sent to the
police station on the basis of which the formal FIR was
recorded. During the course of investigation the appellant
was arrested. After completion of investigation challan
against the accused was presented.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of
arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under
Sections 279/304-A IPC awarded by the Courts below, but has
submitted that the petitioner be ordered to be released on probation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR( Criminal) 328 and
Paul George vs. State of NCT of Delhi (SC) 2008 (2)RCR
(Criminal) 478.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has, in fact, undergone about 5½ months of actual
sentence out of six months of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner
was in Government service and was only bread earner of the family.
He was facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1993. He was
not involved in any other similar offence. The petitioner has to
support his old parents and a young daughter, who has been
deserted by her husband. The petitioner has only three years of
service left to his credit and in case, his sentence qua imprisonment
is not set aside, he would lose his job.
It was unfortunate that an accident took place which
Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 4
resulted in the death of deceased, who was travelling on a moped.
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 (for
short ‘the Act’).
The petitioner is not a previous convict and has got a
family to support. He has already undergone 5 ½ months of actual
sentence out of six months of rigorous imprisonment as ordered by
the Courts below. Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts
and benefit of probation can neither be granted or declined as a
matter of rule. No doubt the cases of accident on the road are
increasing tremendously but in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the petitioner deserves to be released on probation.
The petitioner was driving bus at the time of accident,
which struck against a tractor trolly and as a result, Shiv Kumar, who
was travelling on a moped suffered injuries. The petitioner is
suffering the criminal proceedings since the year 1993.
Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner as ordered by
the Courts below under Sections 279/304-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
Crl.Rev.No. 385 of 2009 5
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 cost of proceedings. The petitioner is directed to furnish the
bonds within one month from today, failing which, the petition shall
stand dismissed.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
April 01, 2009
anita