JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The petitioner Charanjit Singh has filed this criminal revision against the judgment dated 14.2.1991, passed by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which the judgment and order dated 30.1.1990 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kapurthala, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code, was upheld. 2. In this case, one Nasib Kaur, aged about 35 years, wife of the complainant, died in a road accident, which took place on 17.6.1988 due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. At the time of the accident, the deceased was going on road when she was hit by the tempo, a four wheeler, being driven by the petitioner. She was dragged for some distance. When she was being taken to Hospital, she died on the way. 3. The trial Court, while considering the evidence led by the prosecution, found the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him, as mentioned in the first para of this judgment. 4. Before the appellate court, the appellant did not challenge his conviction. However, the appeal was argued only on the point of quantum of sentence. A prayer was made that the petitioner should be given the benefit of probation being the first offender and of young age. This prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the appellate court, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex court in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, (sic) 1980 Supreme Court 84, while observing has under :- "It may be added here that in our jurisprudence, the victims of the crime do not attract attention of the law. The court cannot ignore the interest of the victim while dealing in such cases which is a case in which death of a lady has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the appellant, who after the accident fled the spot little caring for the injured deceased. Had he shown some compassion and care for the injured, perhaps her life could be saved by taking her to the hospital for medical aid without any loss of time. Had he shown some compassion and care for the injured, perhaps her life could be saved by taking her to the hospital for medical aid without any loss of time. Not only this even the driving licence produced by him is proved to be faked inasmuch as it bears the seal of the Licensing Authority Hoshiarpur showing that it was issued at Hoshiarpur but the evidence of PW 8 Surjan Singh Clerk D.T.O. Office, Hoshiarpur shows that the licence taken into possession from the accused was not issued by their office, thereby going to show that the accused had kept with him a faked licence and instead of this the police has not cared to challan him for fabricating a false document i.e. the driving licence which shows that he was driving the vehicle without getting the licence and in these circumstances he does not deserve the sympathy of the Court. The case Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986(1) CLR 391 relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is distinguished from this case inasmuch as the accused had procured a faked driving licence and ran away from the spot little caring for the injured who could survive but for timely medical aid as discussed above. Moreover in that case, the appellant had been facing trial for about five years. Therefore, in my opinion there is no circumstance which may be taken into consideration for releasing him on probation. I, therefore, find that the appellant was rightly convicted. Rather a lenient view has been taken in his sentence and accordingly I dismiss the appeal keeping in view the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra)." 5. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment, the instant revision petition has been filed. 6. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the petitioner did not assail the conviction of the petitioner on merits and has only argued the revision on the quantum of sentence. He has submitted that keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is the first offender and the occurrence took place about 16 years ago, he should be granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. He has submitted that keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is the first offender and the occurrence took place about 16 years ago, he should be granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. In this regard, he relied upon two decisions of this Court in Sudhir Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 795 (P&H) and Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 656 (P&H). 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as discussed by the appellate court, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of probation. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I do not find any merit in the instant revision petition.. There are three circumstances in this case, which do not entitle the petitioner to have the benefit of probation. Firstly, that he was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. An attempt was made by him to prove a driving licence, which was ultimately found to be fake. Secondly, after the accident, he fled away from the spot giving little care to the injured, perhaps her life could have been saved by taking her to the hospital without loss of any time. Thirdly, the deceased was a pedestrian and was hit by the offending vehicle and was dragged for some distance. This reflects his severe negligence, due to which an innocent pedestrian died on the road. Keeping in view these factors, I do not find any reason to grant the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.