Judgment N. C. Khichi, J. 1. - The petitioner was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Chandigarh for an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC read with Sec.3/ 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for having caused the death of Pardeep Kumar on 19-4-1996 by his rash and negligent act i. e. by driving rashly and negligently DCM Toyota bearing Registration No. PAT-9779 in the area of village Buterla. 2. On appraisal of the evidence, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 10-3-1998 to undergo R. I. for six months under Sec.279, IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rupees 500.00 under Sec.304-A, IPC. In default of payment of fine the petitioner was ordered to undergo R. I. for one month. A fine of Rs.200.00 was also imposed upon the petitioner under Sec.181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo imprisonment for seven days. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The appear preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate was dismissed. However, the substantive sentenced awarded to the petitioner was reduced from two years R. I. to 8 months R. I. under Sec.304-A IPC and from 6 months RI to 3 months RI under Sec.279, IPC. The sentence of fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court was maintained. With this modification in the matter of sentence the appeal was dismissed. 4. It is against this judgment of the Appellate Court the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 5. When the matter came up before a co-ordinate Bench on December 17, 1999, notice of motion was issued to the respondent on the quantum of sentence only. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, it was the petitioner who removed the injured to the hospital soon after the occurrence. The petitioner is a first offender and is the only bread earner in the family having a wife and a small child and as such he be given the benefit of probation. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, it was the petitioner who removed the injured to the hospital soon after the occurrence. The petitioner is a first offender and is the only bread earner in the family having a wife and a small child and as such he be given the benefit of probation. 7. It may be noted here that the learned Sessions Judge in para No.16 of the judgment observed that it was indeed the milk of human kindness which prompted the petitioner to take the victim to the hospital soon after the occurrence. Therefore, on the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, he is entitled to benefit of probation. However, this benefit was not extended by the learned Session Judge in view of the observations made by another Bench of this Court in Cr1. Revn. No 88 of 1999 (0 and M) decided on 27-4-1999, wherein it was observed that in such like cases, benefit of probation be not granted. This judgment was sent to the learned Sessions Judge. In view of this, the learned Sessions Judge declined to release the petitioner on probation. 8. Under Sec.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.1958 the Court has the power to release any person who has not committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life on probation keeping in view the circumstances of the case including the nature of offence and the character of the offender. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for exercising this power. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. 9. I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the petitioner in extending helping hand to the injured in order to save his life. He did not try to slip away from the scene of the accident as it happens in many cases of that type. The petitioner is a first offender. Thus keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence awarded to the petitioner is set aside and instead he is directed to be released on probation under Sec.4 (3) of the Probation of Offenders Act under the supervision of District Probation Officer. The petitioner is a first offender. Thus keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence awarded to the petitioner is set aside and instead he is directed to be released on probation under Sec.4 (3) of the Probation of Offenders Act under the supervision of District Probation Officer. Chandigarh on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000.00 with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon by the Court in case of default of any term and condition of the probation bond and to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the said period from the date of his entering into such bond. The bonds be submitted to the satisfaction of CJM, Chandigarh. With this modification in the matter of sentence, this appeal is hereby dismissed. A copy of the order be given dasti to the Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed accordingly.