Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was charge-sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, City Traffic Police Station for offences under S.279 and 304A IPC and S.56(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution case was that on 18-3-1981 at about 5-45 p. m., the petitioner drove lorry bearing Registration No. KLK. 3232 with mud load from east to west along the Pookattupady-Edappally Road in a rash and negligent manner and hit against one Nalinakshan, which ultimately resulted in his death. 2. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of offences under S.279 and 304A IPC and under S.56(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more. No separate sentence was awarded for offence under S.279 IPC The petitioner was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under S.56(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week The driving licence of the petitioner was also suspended for a period of six months from the date of judgment. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1982 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction. However he applied the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and released the petitioner on probation for good conduct for two years on his entering into a bond with two sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the order of suspension of the driving licence of the petitioner for a period of six months. 3. Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the decision of this Court in Rajendran Nair v. State of Kerala (1986 KLT 284). In the said decision Padmanabhan J. observed as follows: "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. In the said decision Padmanabhan J. observed as follows: "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 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 the court has no jurisdiction to award any punishment on an offender who is ordered to be released on probation." The learned judge also held that the wording of S.17(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act itself shows that the disqualification from holding driving licence contemplated in that Section is part of the punishment on conviction. A similar view has been taken by Janaki Amma J. in State v. Ramakrishnan Nair (1982 KLT 97). 4. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the direction contained in the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the licence of the revision-petitioner shall be suspended for a period of six months, is unsustainable. In the result, the Crl. Revision Petition is allowed and the direction contained in the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the licence of the petitioner shall be suspended for a period of six months from the date on which he enters into the bond is set aside.