Judgment :- 1. The short question for consideration in this criminal revision petition is whether an order for suspension of driving licence could be had against an accused who is convicted but ordered to be released under S.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. In C.C.228/79 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, the revision petitioner was prosecuted for having committed offences punishable under S.279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the magistrate under all the counts. But instead of sentencing him straight away to any term of imprisonment or fine, the magistrate ordered him to be released under S.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on his entering into a bond for Rs. 500/- to appear and receive sentence within a period of one year and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. At the same time under S.17(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act he was disqualified from holding driving licence for a period of six months. Under S.5(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act he was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the father of the person who died as a result of the incident and also Rs. 500/-to PW.2 who had also occasion to sustain injuries as a result of the incident. Crl.A.35/81 filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. Hence he has come in revision. 3. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- directed to be paid to the father of the deceased as well as the amount of Rs.500/- directed to be paid to PW.2 were actually paid by him and those directions are not the subject-matter of challenge in revision. So also he executed the bond as directed by the magistrate and the period of bond is also over. The challenge in revision is only against that part of the order by which the driving licence of the revision petitioner was suspended for six months. 4. According to the counsel for the revision petitioner the suspension of his driving licence under S.17(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act will have to be considered as part of the sentence. He argued that when the magistrate has decided to release him on probation of good conduct under S.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act there was no jurisdiction to pass any sentence at all. He argued that when the magistrate has decided to release him on probation of good conduct under S.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act there was no jurisdiction to pass any sentence at all. I think there is much force in the contention of the counsel provided the suspension of driving licence could be taken as part of the punishment awarded by court. 5. Probation is temporary suspension of sentence. That temporary suspension of sentence is likely to turn out as a permanent suspension in case the offender is able to satisfy the provisions of the bond for the full term for which it is ordered. What S.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act says is that the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond. Therefore when the offender is ordered to be released on probation, there is no question of inflicting any punishment at all on him immediately. The question of punishment will arise only when he violates any of the conditions of the bond or when the court subsequently thinks that he should be called upon to appear and receive the sentence. Such a contingency has not arisen in this case. Before such a contingency has arisen, I think the court has no jurisdiction to award. any punishment on an offender who is ordered to be released on probation. The very purpose of release on probation is reformation. 6. The wording of S.17 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act itself shows that disqualification from holding driving licence contemplated in that section is part of the punishment on conviction. What is provided therein is "in addition to imposing any punishment authorised by law, declare the person so convicted to be disqualified for such period as the Court may specify, for holding any driving licence to drive a particular class or description of vehicle". 7. In the decision in State V. Ramakrishnan Nair (1982 KLT 97) an identical question came up for consideration. As to whether the disqualification in holding driving licence will amount to punishment or not that decision held: "Going by the language of S.17 (1) with particular reference to the words "any other punishment authorised by law" it would appear that the statute intends that the order of disqualification should be a punishment. As to whether the disqualification in holding driving licence will amount to punishment or not that decision held: "Going by the language of S.17 (1) with particular reference to the words "any other punishment authorised by law" it would appear that the statute intends that the order of disqualification should be a punishment. Since the punishment has not been defined it must be held that the word is used in the ordinary dictionary meaning. While conviction of an offender is a public condemnation of his conduct, punishment is the consequence of such condemnation. It follows, disqualification for holding a driving licence is a punishment for an offence under S.89 of the Motor Vehicles Act". It was also held therein: " "Sentence" in the legal sense is the judicial pronouncement following the conviction for an offence designating the punishment thereof; it also stands for the punishment so imposed. There is no doubt that the disqualification mentioned in S.17 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a judicial pronouncement following the conviction for an offence. The Court is not competent to disqualify a person unless the offence as such is established and the person concerned is convicted for the offence. Therefore, an order of disqualification passed by a court under S.17 of the Motor Vehicles Act is part of the sentencing [process". 8. So also the counsel for the revision petitioner brought to my notice the decisions in Karim Bakhsh v. Emperor (AIR 1930 Lahore 56) and Mt. Barkat v. Emperor (AIR 1934 Lahore 514), both dealing with S.562 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to S.360 of the present Code. In the former decision it was held that when an order for release under S.562 was passed, a sentence of fine will be an illegality. The latter decision held that in case of such a release a term of imprisonment will be an illegality. 9. Going by the abovesaid decisions as well as S.17(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and S.4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, I think that the provision in the judgment of the magistrate disqualifying the revision petitioner from holding driving licence for a period of six months is an illegality when he was ordered and released on probation. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Sessions judge in appeal probably because such a contention was not raised before him. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Sessions judge in appeal probably because such a contention was not raised before him. This Court is bound to consider the same when such an illegality is brought to its notice. Consequently the criminal revision petition is allowed and the order disqualifying the revision petitioner from holding licence for a period of six months is hereby set aside.