Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 996 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Paramjit Singh

2013-08-05

Mehinder Singh Sullar

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.:- The matrix of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 1.9.1992, Raj Kumar Thukral (PW3) was driving the scooter, bearing registration No.CHB-6672, whereas Dr.Dharampal Dhir was a pillion rider. They were going from Chandigarh to Kharar. At about 9.30 A.M., as soon as, they reached a little behind the Fort on Chandigarh-Kharar road (place of accident), in the meantime, a bus, bearing registration No.PJG-3745 belonging to Nawanshahr Depot of Punjab Roadways (for brevity “the offending bus”) in a very rash & negligent manner, being driven by Paramjit Singh son of Dhanna Singh respondent-accused (for short “the accused”) came from the opposite direction. The accused could not control and rammed the offending bus into their scooter. As a result thereof, they felled on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. As a matter of fact, Dr.Dharampal Dhir got crushed under the front tyre of the offending bus and succumbed to his injuries at the spot, whereas Raj Kumar Thukral suffered multiple grievous injuries. Their scooter also suffered extensive damage. The driver of the offending bus ran away from the place of accident. Complainant constable Jaspal Singh (PW4) (in short “the complainant”) and Rajinder Singh PHG (PW5), who were coming behind the ill-fated scooter, have also witnessed the accident. Thereafter, injured Raj Kumar Thukral was removed to Civil Hospital, Kharar at the first instance and subsequently taking into consideration his serious condition, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. PW3 Jaspal Singh reported the matter and got recorded his statement (Ex.PC) before ASI Gurbax Singh (PW9), who made his endorsement (Ex.PW9/A) and sent it to the police station for registration of the case. 2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the accused, while driving the offending bus, in which, Raj Kumar Thukral and Dr.Dharampal Dhir sustained injuries. Dr.Dharampal Dhir was crushed under the tyre of the offending bus and succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Dr.Dharampal Dhir was crushed under the tyre of the offending bus and succumbed to his injuries at the spot. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PC) of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the accused, by virtue of FIR No.89 dated 1.9.1992 (Ex.PW9/B), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 279, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC by the police of Police Station Kharar, District Ropar, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 3. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the accused to face the trial for the indicated offences. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of pointed offences by the trial Magistrate. As he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 5. Sequelly, the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined PW1 Niranjan Singh, Mechanic, Punjab Roadways, PW2 Ved Parkash, Photographer, PW3 Raj Kumar Thukral injured/eye witness, PW4 Jaspal Singh complainant/eye witness, PW5 Rajinder Singh, eye witness, PW6 Dr.Kartar Singh, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Dr.Dharampal Dhir, PW7 Pargat Singh, Inspector, Punjab Roadways, PW8 Dr.Vikas Mehra, HC Charan Singh PW8 (wrongly numbered twice) and PW9 ASI Gurbax Singh, Investigating Officer in oral evidence, besides tendering certain documents in evidence, which would be referred at subsequent appropriate stage of the judgment. 6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. Although the accused has admitted that he was driving the offending bus at the relevant time, but he has denied his negligence in causing the accident in question. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. 7. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (in short “RI”) for a period of two months u/s 279 IPC, to undergo RI for a period of three months u/s 338 IPC, to undergo RI for a period of two years, to pay a fine of Rs. 7. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (in short “RI”) for a period of two months u/s 279 IPC, to undergo RI for a period of three months u/s 338 IPC, to undergo RI for a period of two years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, by means of judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 22.8.1994 by the trial Magistrate. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the accused was accepted and he was acquitted by the appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 20.7.1999. 9. The State of Punjab did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal in this Court. That is how I am seized of the matter. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present appeal deserves to be accepted in this context. 11. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that the prosecution has miserably failed to produce sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused, the accident was caused due to contributory negligence of the scooterist as well and since the appellate Court has rightly acquitted him, so, no interference is warranted in this respect, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 12. As indicated here-in-above, the trial Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused for the pointed offences, whereas the appellate Court acquitted him, vide impugned judgment of acquittal. 12. As indicated here-in-above, the trial Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused for the pointed offences, whereas the appellate Court acquitted him, vide impugned judgment of acquittal. The main grounds, which appear to have been weighed with the appellate Court to acquit the accused, were that (i) as per the statement of ASI Gurbax Singh (PW9), the width of the road at the place of accident was 60'; (ii) as per the site plan (Ex.PW9/C), the sewerage work was going on, with the result that the earth was put on 1/3rd of the right side road, while going from Kharar to Chandigarh; (iii) the offending bus was found parked on the extreme left side of the road, while coming from Kharar to Chandigarh, as depicted in the photographs (Ex.P6 to Ex.P10); (iv) a dent was found in the centre of bumper of the bus by PW1 motor mechanic; and (v) the rear tyre came to a halt before crushing the dead body, which go to show that the offending bus was not at a very high speed and the scooter hit in the middle of the front bumper indicating that the scooter was going on its wrong side. Preceding on these speculative presumptions, the appellate Court has brushed aside the entire prosecution evidence. Here, to me, the appellate Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this regard. 13. As is evident from the record that the prosecution claimed that on the fateful day PW3 Raj Kumar Thukral was driving the scooter, bearing registration No.CHB-6672, whereas Dr. Dharampal Dhir was a pillion rider. They were going from Chandigarh to Kharar. At about 9.30 A.M., as soon as, they reached a little behind the Fort on Chandigarh- Kharar road (place of accident), in the meantime, the offending bus, being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction. He could not control and rammed it into their scooter. As a result thereof, they felled on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. Dr. Dharam Pal Dhir got crushed under the front tyre of the offending bus and succumbed to his injuries at the spot, whereas Raj Kumar Thukral suffered multiple grievous injuries. Their scooter also suffered extensive damage. The driver of the offending bus ran away from the place of accident. 14. Dr. Dharam Pal Dhir got crushed under the front tyre of the offending bus and succumbed to his injuries at the spot, whereas Raj Kumar Thukral suffered multiple grievous injuries. Their scooter also suffered extensive damage. The driver of the offending bus ran away from the place of accident. 14. It is not a matter of dispute, rather admitted by the accused that he was driving the offending bus at the time of accident. Moreover, it is otherwise so proved from the way bill (Ex.P1) and duty roster (Ex.P3) produced by PW7 Pargat Singh Inspector, Punjab Roadways. Dr.Dharampal Dhir was crushed by the front tyre and succumbed to his injuries at the spot, whereas PW3 Raj Kumar Thukral sustained multiple grievous injuries. 15. At the very outset, there can hardly be any dispute with regard to the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Dhanapal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3084] : 2010(5) RCR(Criminal) 353; Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadur & Anr., [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3020] : 2010 (5) RCR (Criminal) 481 and Perla Somasekhara Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor 2010(5) RCR(Criminal) 360 relied on behalf of the accused, that the Court is under the bounden duty and obligation to deal with the evidence as it is and no improvement or re-writing of evidence is permissible. The appellate Court has full power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider evidence on which acquittal is founded and if two views are possible, then the acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with. 16. Above being the legal position and evidence on record, now the short & significant question, though important that, arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether the prosecution was successful to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused or not ? 17. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative as the prosecution has brought more than sufficient evidence on record in this relevant connection. 18. At the first instance, Raj Kumar Thukral is the main injured/eye witness of the accident. He, while appearing as PW3 in the Court, has, inter-alia, stated, on oath, that on 1.9.1992, he along with Dr.Dharampal Dhir was going on their scooter, bearing registration No.CHB-6672 from Chandigarh to Kharar for duty. 18. At the first instance, Raj Kumar Thukral is the main injured/eye witness of the accident. He, while appearing as PW3 in the Court, has, inter-alia, stated, on oath, that on 1.9.1992, he along with Dr.Dharampal Dhir was going on their scooter, bearing registration No.CHB-6672 from Chandigarh to Kharar for duty. He was driving the scooter, whereas the deceased was a pillion rider. At about 9.30 A.M., as soon as, they reached a little behind the Fort (near place of accident), in the meantime, the offending bus came at a very fast and high speed from the opposite direction. The accused (present in the Court) was driving the offending bus in a rash & negligent manner. He could not control, brought the bus on wrong side, rammed it into their scooter and caused the accident. He sustained fractures of his both legs and thighs. He became unconscious after receipt of injuries. Initially, he was removed in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Kharar, from where, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He was discharged from PGI on 25.12.1992. His statement was recorded by the police. 19. Sequelly, complainant Jaspal Singh (PW4) and Rajinder Singh (PW5) are eye witnesses, who have also inter-alia, stated that the accident in question had taken place due to rash & negligent driving of the accused while driving the offending bus, in which, PW3 sustained multiple grievous injuries and Dr. Dharampal Dhir was crushed under the tyre and succumbed to his injuries at the spot. 20. Not only that, the ocular evidence of prosecution finds further corroboration from the statement of Dr.Kartar Singh (PW6), who on police request (Ex.PW6/C), has conducted the post mortem examination of Dr.Dharampal Dhir, vide post mortem report (Ex.PW6/A) and found the following injuries on his person :- 1. Lacerated wound 6" x 1" over dorsal aspect of left forearm with fracture left humerous and both bone of the left fore arm. 2. Lacerated wound 15" x 7" on the upper part of the right upper arm through which right humerous and scapula is protruding. 3. Lacerated wound extending from medial canthus of right eye to left occipital region. Brain matter is protruding. 4. Lacerated wound 2" x 1" over left side of the face. 5. Abrasion 23" x 6" present over from the upper part of the chest to both upper arms. Reddish in colour. 6. 3. Lacerated wound extending from medial canthus of right eye to left occipital region. Brain matter is protruding. 4. Lacerated wound 2" x 1" over left side of the face. 5. Abrasion 23" x 6" present over from the upper part of the chest to both upper arms. Reddish in colour. 6. Multiple abrasion in the arms 10 cm x 7 cm over the right thigh and 5 cm x 4 cm over the left leg. 21. On dissection of the skull, he found fracture of frontal temporal parietal an occipital bone is seen. Menings (Sic. Meningitis) and brain matter were lacerated and coming out of the wound. The cause of death in his opinion was due to injury to the vital structures of brain and chest leading to hemorrhage shock and death. All the injuries were antemortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He sent the intimation (Ex.PW6/B) to the police in this regard. PW8 Dr.Vikas Mehra from Surgery department of PGI, proved the case summary/treatment chart of PW3 R.K.Thukral. 22. Likewise, PW1 Niranjan Singh, Mechanic, has stated that on 4.9.1992, he mechanically tested the scooter and offending bus and submitted his reports (Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B) respectively, whereas PW2 Ved Parkash Photographer proved the photographs (Ex.P6 to Ex.P10) of the place of accident and offending bus, vide negatives (Ex.P1 to Ex.P5), which were taken into possession by the police, by virtue of recovery memo (Ex.PB). 23. Meaning thereby, PW3 Raj Kumar Thukral, complainant Jaspal Singh (PW4) and Rajinder Singh (PW5) are the eye witnesses of the accident in question, who have duly corroborated the prosecution version on all vital counts. Similarly, PW7 Pargat Singh, Inspector, Punjab Roadways, has proved the copy of way bill (Ex.P1), copy of appointment record of the accused (Ex.P2), copy of duty roster (Ex.P3) and RC of the offending bus (Ex.P4). PW8 HC Charan Singh (wrongly numbered twice), proved the seizure memo, vide which, the scooter involved in the accident along with its RC and insurance cover (Ex.P6) and the offending bus, were taken into possession. Sequelly, PW9 ASI Gurbax Singh has testified his investigation and stated that on 1.9.1992 Jaspal Singh complainant (PW4) came and made his statement (Ex.PC). PW8 HC Charan Singh (wrongly numbered twice), proved the seizure memo, vide which, the scooter involved in the accident along with its RC and insurance cover (Ex.P6) and the offending bus, were taken into possession. Sequelly, PW9 ASI Gurbax Singh has testified his investigation and stated that on 1.9.1992 Jaspal Singh complainant (PW4) came and made his statement (Ex.PC). He made the endorsement (Ex.PW9/A) and sent it to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which, the formal FIR (Ex.PW9/B) was recorded. 24. Having carefully perused the entire oral, medical and documentary evidence on record, I cannot help observing that the appellate Court has just ignored the entire evidence, including the evidence of injured/eye witnesses, misread the site plan (Ex.PW9/C) and photographs (Ex.P6 to Ex.P10). The perusal of the site plan would reveal that the offending bus was standing at point A on Chandigarh-Kharar Road, the scooter was entangled in it and the dead body of Dr.Dharampal Dhir was lying near the right rear tyre of the offending bus. It is also so depicted in the photographs (Ex.P6 to Ex.P10). The eye witnesses have witnessed the accident from point-B. The site plan also indicates that some sewerage work was going on and mud was lying on the southern portion of the road. The simple reason that the offending bus was standing at the left side of the road after causing the accident shown in the photographs, is not at all sufficient to throw the entire evidence of the prosecution. On the contrary, the mere facts that the scooter in question was entangled in front side of the offending bus, the deceased was crushed by its front tyre and the dead body was lying on the right rear side of the tyre of bus, are indicative of the conclusion that the accused was driving the offending bus at an un-controlable speed and stopped after covering some distance after crushing Dr.Dharampal Dhir with front tyre and caused the accident negligently. 25. As the sewerage work was going on and the mud was lying on the southern portion of the road, therefore, the accused was required to be more vigilant, careful and to reduce the speed, while driving the heavy vehicle on such busy roads. He has miserably failed to observe the required prudence and care. Moreover, he ran away from the spot after causing the accident. He has miserably failed to observe the required prudence and care. Moreover, he ran away from the spot after causing the accident. If he was not negligent as claimed by him, then, there was no occasion for him to slip away from the place of accident. It raises an accusing finger towards his guilt. Likewise, the minor discrepancies here and there with regard to width, presence of mud on the road and existence of houses & shops near the place of accident, in the statements of PW3 to PW5, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless, cogent to throw away the entire prosecution version, which is otherwise duly proved by reliable & admissible evidence of eye witnesses, as has been done by the appellate Court in the present case. 26. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. As indicated earlier, PW3 is an injured eye witness, whereas PW4 and PW5 are also the eye witnesses, who have actually witnessed the accident. PW3 to PW5 have categorically stated, on oath, that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the accused while driving the offending bus. They have fully proved the complicity of the accused. They were cross-examined at length, but no substantial material could be elicited in their searching cross examination to dislodge their testimony and impeach their credibility, except the minor and irrelevant pointed discrepancies. No motive could possibly be attributed to the injured/eye witnesses as to why they would falsely depose and implicate the accused in this case. They gave a vivid, consistent and cogent version of the occurrence and supported the prosecution story on all vital counts. The investigating officer has duly testified his investigation. The ocular evidence of prosecution finds further corroboration from medical evidence, particularly when the accused has admitted that he was driving the offending bus at the relevant time. He even ran away from the spot. The mere denial by him that he was not negligent or rash, outrightly deserves to be rejected in the absence of any cogent material on record in this context. Perhaps that was the reason, the trial Magistrate has appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and correctly convicted the accused. 27. He even ran away from the spot. The mere denial by him that he was not negligent or rash, outrightly deserves to be rejected in the absence of any cogent material on record in this context. Perhaps that was the reason, the trial Magistrate has appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and correctly convicted the accused. 27. In that eventuality, the appellate Court was required to give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial Magistrate based on the evidence of injured/eye witnesses, because only the trial Court had the opportunity to test the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. This is especially true when a credibility of a witness is in issue. It is not enough for the appellate Court to take a different view of the evidence after ignoring the entire prosecution evidence on speculative grounds. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for ignoring the evidence and judgment of the trial Magistrate in this relevant connection. 28. Having considered the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate Court and a line of various judgments on the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2817] : 2008(10) SCC 450 has ruled as under (para 75) :- “In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii)The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”; iv)The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi)The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 29. Strange enough, none of the parameters and Bench mark set out by Hon’ble Apex Court were considered and the appellate Court has been swayed away by the irrelevant and alien consideration while ignoring the acceptable and relevant indicated evidence on record with impunity. Therefore, to me, the impugned judgment of acquittal of appellate Court cannot legally be sustained and the judgment of conviction of trial Magistrate deserves to be and is hereby restored/maintained. 30. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel then urged that as the accused is a first offender and not a previous convict, therefore, he be released on probation. This contention has left me in lurch and put in a piquant situation to think twice. Although, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 816 B.Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2487] : 2008(3) RCR (Crl.) 50 has held that the Courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving, but, to my mind, the instant case is the rarest of the rare case and there are substantial, mitigating and very very compelling reasons to grant the benefit of probation to the accused for the reasons mentioned here-inbelow:- i) The accident in question in this case had taken place on 1.9.1992 and the accused has already faced the pangs and suffered the agony of protracted trial & appeals for the last about 21 years; ii) He is a Punjab Government employee and is at the verge of retirement. If he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment, then naturally, he would lose his job and other service benefits including the retiral benefits; iii)He was acquitted by the appellate Court and he has enjoyed/availed the fruits of his acquittal since 1999; iv)He has three unmarried daughters to support, as projected by his counsel. If he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment, then naturally, he would lose his job and other service benefits including the retiral benefits; iii)He was acquitted by the appellate Court and he has enjoyed/availed the fruits of his acquittal since 1999; iv)He has three unmarried daughters to support, as projected by his counsel. If the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment, then, what would be the fate of his unmarried daughters, is a question mark. In that eventuality, the possibility of their adopting suicidal path or to die in starvation cannot be ruled out; v) There is no other male member to support his family; vi)He is a first offender and there is no history of his previous or subsequent conviction; vii)He is ready to pay the adequate compensation to the LRs of deceased Dr.Dharampal Dhir and to injured PW3 Raj Kumar Thukral; viii)The antecedent and credentials of the accused are such that he has not been found involved in any other case; ix)Under these compelling reasons, there is no legal impediment to release him on probation; x) Even the modern trend of penology also leans towards the reformation of the offender, so as to make him a useful citizen of the society. No useful purpose was going to be achieved by again sending the accused to jail after about 21 years. 31. Therefore, taking into consideration the period of agony of protracted trial & appeals, age, antecedents of the accused, his three unmarried daughters to support and totality of the facts & circumstances, emerging out of the record, as depicted here-in-above, to me, it would be expedient in the interest and justice would be squarely met & sub-served, if a lenient view in the matter of sentence is taken against him, inasmuch as, no useful purpose would be served in sending him again to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence after more than 14 years of his acquittal by the appellate Court and instead of sending him to prison, he be released on probation in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 32. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 33. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant State appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment of acquittal of appellate Court is hereby set aside. Consequently, the judgment of conviction of trial Magistrate is restored/maintained. 32. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 33. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant State appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment of acquittal of appellate Court is hereby set aside. Consequently, the judgment of conviction of trial Magistrate is restored/maintained. However, instead of sending him to jail, the accused is directed to be released on probation on his furnishing personal bond (within two months) in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the condition that he would keep peace and be of good behaviour, for a period of two years from the date of passing of this order. He is also directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the LRs of deceased Dr.Dharampal Dhir and Rs. 25,000/- to injured PW3 Raj Kumar Thukral, in lieu of the damage caused to the victims, within a period of two months from today. The order of sentence of trial Magistrate is accordingly modified to the extent and in the manner described here-in-above. However, it is made clear that in case the accused violates any condition of the bond and non-payment of compensation to the victims by him, then, the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Magistrate shall automatically stand revived. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 34. Needless to mention that indicated benefit of probation would not suffer any disqualification as regards the service benefits of the accused are concerned, as contemplated u/s 12 of the Act. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————