JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated March 21, 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby his appeal against the judgment dated September 11, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul has been dismissed. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 279 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 337 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. As per the prosecution version, on April 16, 1988 one Inderjeet Singh Attre alongwith B.B. Sharma, O.P. Malhotra and Sawer Mal Verma were going from Khetri to Delhi in a maruti van No. RJP-6889. In the meantime, one truck No. HYO-275 which was being driven by the petitioner had come from the opposite side and struck against the maruti van and as a result of the aforesaid collision four persons died at the spot and Inderjeet Singh Attre complainant had survived and suffered a fracture on his leg. On the basis of the statement made by Inderjeet Singh Attre (injured), a formal FIR was registered. After investigation, the challan was presented and the petitioner was tried.
3. The prosecution led evidence and thereafter the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
4. His appeal before the learned Sessions Judge having been failed, he has now approached this Court through the present revision petition.
5. I have heard Shri G.S. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record.
6. In my considered opinion, no fault can be found with the order of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below. The manner of accident has been duly detailed out by Inderjeet Singh Attre who has appeared as PW7. In fact, he is an injured person who was travelling in the ill-fated maruti van. He has stated that, in fact, prior to the collision two trucks had crossed the maruti van and thereafter the third truck came which was being driven by the petitioner in a bubbling manner and had collided with the van in question resulting into death of four persons and injury to him. I have also gone through the evidence available on record. Nothing has been shown to me that the order of conviction passed by the learned Courts below suffers from any infirmity. In this view of the matter, no interference with regard to the conviction order passed by the learned Courts below against the petitioner is required by this Court.
7. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident in question had taken place in the year 1988 i.e. almost 14 years back and the petitioner has already suffered long and protracted criminal proceedings. The petitioner was granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated May 31, 1994. It is not shown by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that after the aforesaid concession of bail, the petitioner has ever been involved in the commission of criminal offence. On that basis, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a lenient view be taken with regard to the imposition of sentence.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, especially the fact, that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1988 and the petitioner has already suffered long and protracted criminal proceedings and also the fact that the bail had been granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated May 31, 1994, no useful purpose would be served by sending back the petitioner to jail at this stage.
9. In these circumstances, while maintaining the order of conviction against the petitioner, the order of sentence is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul with an undertaking to keep pease and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence during the said period if and when called upon to do so.
10. With the above modification, the present petition is disposed of.