Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parties Name vs The State (Ut Chandigarh) on 6 February, 2009
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
CR. REVISION NO. 1447 OF 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: February 06, 2009.
Parties Name
Harpal Singh
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State (UT Chandigarh)
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. K.K.Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. R.K.Agnihotri and Kapil Aggarwal,
Advocates, for the petitioner.
JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)
ORDER:
It was allegation against petitioner Harpal Singh that on September 11, 1994, by driving truck /Canter No. CHW 7891, in a rash and negligent manner,he hit back portion of truck No. CHW 9997, resulting in serious injuries to Nageshwar Mandal, who was sitting on the back side of latter truck. On statement made by Rama Nand Mandal Ex. PA, FIR No. 276 dated September 11, 1994 (Ex. PA/2) was registered against the petitioner. It has also come on record that the aforesaid injured succumbed to his injuries on September 12, 1994 in PGI at Chandigarh. After his conviction and sentence, petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate Court below on September 17, 2001. Hence this revision petition.
CR. REVISION NO. 1447 OF 2001 -2-
Counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince this Court so far as correctness of the findings recorded against him by the Courts below are concerned. Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a first offender. He is married, having minor children, is the sole bread winner of the family and if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, not only he but his entire family would suffer. He prayed that he be enlarged on probation to keep good conduct. It is apparent from the record that the accident had occurred on September 11, 1994. It has also come on record that the petitioner has undergone 4 months and 12 days of actual sentence. Counsel states that the punishment awarded is on the higher side and keeping note of the facts mentioned above, leniency be shown to him. Counsel has assured this Court that in case the petitioner is enlarged on probation, he shall observe all the traffic rules and will not commit such or similar offence.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that purpose of Criminal Law system is not only to punish an erring individual but is also to reform him. As per information supplied by counsel for the petitioner, after conviction of the petitioner in this case, he has not repeated any such like offence. Now he is leading life of a disciplined citizen. He has already remained behind bars for more than four months.
In view of facts, mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that reformative approach is required to be adopted by this Court.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) , 2001(9) Supreme Court 161, in paragraph No. 7, observed as under:-
"Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. CR. REVISION NO. 1447 OF 2001 -3- The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repeat for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weight the degree of culpability of the accused. Its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society: weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law."
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of the CR. REVISION NO. 1447 OF 2001 -4- Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 CAR 280(SC) and Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 C.A.R. 5 (SC), to contend that petitioner be released on probation.
Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of the aforesaid judgment, conviction is upheld. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six months. However, keeping in view ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 372, and to settle equity between the parties, fine imposed is enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- over and above the fine already imposed. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of fine with the trial Court within three months from today and on deposit so being made, trial Court will issue a notice to legal heirs of deceased Nageshwar Mandal and disburse that amount to them forthwith. In case amount is not deposited, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner shall execute bail bond and undertaking before the trial Court that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime during the period of six months. Requisite bail bonds and undertaking be furnished within three months. With above said modification, this revision petition stands disposed of.
Copy of the order be given Dasti.
February 06, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge