Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1126 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Tilak Raj

2002-10-23

R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a criminal revision and it has been directed against the judgment 29.4.1988 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, who while maintaining the conviction of the respondent under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, set aside the order of punishment with the direction that respondent shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount for the period of two years undertaking that he shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour and shall appear before the Magistrate to receive the sentence if he violates the terms of the bonds. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- 3. Respondent Shri Tilak Raj was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that when he was driving Bus No. PAB-9033 on 20.5.1986, he allegedly caused accident in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which Hoshiar Singh passenger died. The story of the prosecution is that on 20.5.1986 the bus left Nangal at 7.45 P.M. for village Bhallari. When the bus reached the chowk of village Dayapur at 8.30 P.M. many passengers got down from the bus. Hoshiar Singh was also one of them. He had placed his cycle on the roof of the bus. He went upon the roof to bring down his cycle and when he was so doing the accused started the bus for proceeding further. Alarm was raised that a passenger was on the roof but the accused did not listen, as a result of which Hoshiar Singh fell down with his cycle. He was taken to Hospital of Nangal where he was declared dead. On the completion of the investigation of the case a challan was presented under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent in the Court of Area Magistrate. 4. Vide judgment dated 14.11.1987, respondent Shri Tilak Raj was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo R.I. for six months. The respondent was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. 1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo R.I. for six months. The respondent was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Respondent filed an appeal in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar who vide judgment dated 29.4.1988 while maintaining the conviction of the respondent held that it was a fit case where the probation should be granted to the respondent Resultantly, he was released on probation. 6. Not satisfied with the judgment of the appellate Court, the present revision which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The Honble Supreme Court has warned the lower Courts on several occasions that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or that of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be extended to those convicts who are responsible for commission of the offence under Sections 279/304-A IPC as a human life is lost in the process of rash and negligent act committed by the accused. The scales of justice are supposed to be kept at par lest the faith of the people may be evaporated from the criminal justice. Once the offence is proved it is the duty of the criminal Courts to award punishment according to law. Therefore, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting probation to the respondent is hereby set aside and it is hereby ordered that the petitioner shall serve the substantive sentence of 8 days. Let intimation be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, who shall ensure about the sentence awarded to the respondent. Revision stands allowed to the extent indicated above.