Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1651 (PNJ)

Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab

2003-12-09

NIRMAL SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - The petitioner was prosecuted under sections 304- A/279/336/427 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing the death by rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HPK 9059 which struck into the scooter of Rajesh Kumar bearing Registration No. JK-08-1986 as a result of which, Jyoti and Baby Guddi who were pillion rider on the scooter died on the spot whereas Rajesh Kumar received injuries. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1-1/2 years and to pay a find of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for 15 days under section 304-A Indian Penal Code by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot vide order dated 20.2.2002. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur which was dismissed on 15.9.2003. Aggrieved by the orders of the courts below, the present revision petition has been preferred. 3. The facts need not to be referred in this revision petition as the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Parveen Kumar has not challenged the conviction. He has submitted that while passing the order of sentence, the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the mandatory provisions of Sections 360 and 361 Criminal Procedure Code He further pointed out that while declining the benefit of probation, no reason whatsoever has been given by the learned trial court. He submitted that the petitioner is the only bread earner in the family and is not a previous convict. The petitioner is facing trial for the last 5 years and has suffered both mentally and financially. He further submitted that the petitioner be given the benefit of probation. 4. Shri B.S. Sewak, DAG, Punjab opposed the prayer on the ground that the accidents are increasing day by day, therefore, the persons who are involved in accident cases should not be released on probation. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the record. 6. Under section 360 Criminal Procedure Code a convict is to be released on probation of good conduct after admonition. Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code reads as under :- "360. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the record. 6. Under section 360 Criminal Procedure Code a convict is to be released on probation of good conduct after admonition. Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code reads as under :- "360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition :- (1) When any person not under twenty one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed that is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour." 7. The provisions of Section 361 Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory in nature and enjoin upon the court to given specific reason if convict is not dealt with under section 360 Criminal Procedure Code as it has been laid down in Bishnu Deo Shah v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 964. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to deal with a convict when he is not convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and no previous conviction is proved against the offender. The petitioner is not a previous convict. There is no evidence on the record to show that before or after the registration of the case, the petitioner has indulged in any other criminal activity. So, taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner and the antecedents, there was no ground for declining the benefit of probation to the petitioner. The petitioner is not a previous convict. There is no evidence on the record to show that before or after the registration of the case, the petitioner has indulged in any other criminal activity. So, taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner and the antecedents, there was no ground for declining the benefit of probation to the petitioner. The petitioner has already undergone substantial portion of his sentence and has faced the agony of the trial for 5 years and has suffered both mentally and financially. As per the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is sole bread earner in the family, it will be in the interest of justice that conviction of the appellant be maintained and the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be suspended. 8. In view of the circumstances explained above, the petitioner is, therefore, released on probation for a period of one year, on furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. He is directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour during this period. The petitioner will pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to Rajesh Kumar, husband of deceased Jyoti. With this modification in the sentence, the revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.