Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 May, 2014
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
CRR No. 146 OF 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 146 OF 2014 (O&M)
DECIDED ON : 30.05.2014
Amardeep Singh
...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. T. P. S. Tung, Advocate and
Mr. H. S. Sullar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajaib Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Amardeep Singh has directed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner/appellant against the judgment dated 16.08.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, was dismissed.
Briefly stated, the petitioner was sent to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 279/337/338/427/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") vide FIR No. 32 dated 22.02.2005 registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana. Bhatia Shalini 2014.06.04 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No. 146 OF 2014 (O&M) -2-
In nut-shell the allegations against the petitioner are that on 24.02.2005 while driving his Zen car bearing registration No. PB-25B-4488 in a rash and negligent manner, he caused accident with motorcycle bearing registration No. PB1-10BG- 5533, resulting in death of Amar Singh.
The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, convicted the petitioner under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2011 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment and fine as under :-
"U/S 337 IPC :- Rigorous imprisonment for two months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine the convict will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
U/S 304-A IPC :- Rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months."
Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2011, the petitioner preferred the appeal and vide judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, the said appeal was dismissed.
Still feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 16.08.2011 passed by JMIC, Ludhiana and judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed by ASJ, Ludhiana, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
Bhatia Shalini2014.06.04 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No. 146 OF 2014 (O&M) -3-
This Court on 24.02.2014 passed the following order :-
" Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not challenge the conviction on merits and restricts this petition qua quantum of sentence only.
On the request of learned State counsel adjourned to 26.03.2014."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the conviction slip, the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of 01 month and 21 days as on 10.02.2014 i.e about five and half months. He has further contended that the petitioner is a government employee and is working in Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and is aged about 52 years. He has further submitted that the petitioner is at the fag end of his service and in case he is not allowed the concession of probation, in that case, he will loose his job. His daughters are of marriageable age. It is further submitted that in authority "Aitha Chander Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" 1981 SCC 17, the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the concession of probation keeping in view the career of the employee. He has further submitted that in authority "Paul George vs. State of NCT of Delhi" 2008 (4) SCC 185, the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the concession of probation in the case of a government employee.
In order to strengthen the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the following authorities :- Bhatia Shalini 2014.06.04 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No. 146 OF 2014 (O&M) -4-
1) "Krishan Murari vs. State of Punjab" C.R No. 601 of 2000 decided on : 26.03.2010.
2) "Prem Singh vs. State of U.T.Chandigarh" 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 162.
3) "Chuni Lal vs. State of Haryana" 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 844.
4) "Balbir Singh vs. State of Haryana" 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 310.
5) "Sultan Singh vs. State of Punjab" 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 328.
6) "Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab" 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 725.
7) "Vikaram Singh vs. The State of Haryana" 2003 (3) RCR (Criminal) 192.
8) "Satwinder Singh vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh"
2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 466.
9) "Mann Parkash vs. State of Haryana" 1996 (1) RCR (Criminal) 437.
10) "Chandreshwar Sharma vs. State of Bihar" JT 2000 (2) SC 36.
Learned State counsel has not opposed the prayer made in the petition.
Bhatia Shalini 2014.06.04 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No. 146 OF 2014 (O&M) -5-
I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case.
In normal practice, the Hon'ble Apex Court has depreciated to grant probation on account of the fact that road accidents are on rise and roads have become death tracks. However, each case has to be decided on peculiar circumstances of the case.
In the present case, the petitioner is admittedly a government employee. From the evidence available on record, it is revealed that the deceased was also in a drunkard condition. The occurrence relates to the year 2005 i.e more than 09 years back and since then the petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aitha Chander Rao's case (supra) and Paul George's case (supra), has allowed the concession of probation in respect of offence under Section 304-A IPC where it is a case of government employee. In Aitha Chander Rao's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the appellant shall be released on probation and this may not effect his service career in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The daughters of petitioner are of marriageable age. The natural consequence of upholding the conviction would be drastic and the petitioner may loose his job.
This Court in Krishan Murari's case (supra), Prem Singh's case (supra), Chuni Lal's case (supra), Balbir Bhatia Shalini 2014.06.04 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No. 146 OF 2014 (O&M) -6- Singh's case (supra), Sultan Singh's case (supra), Bhupinder Singh's case (supra), Vikram Singh's case (supra), Satwinder Singh's case (supra), Mann Prakash's case (supra), has allowed the concession of probation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a sum of `5 lacs has been awarded in favour of the legal heirs of deceased Amar Singh. He has further submtited that petitioner is also ready to compensate the legal heirs of deceased and has offered a sum of ` 1 lac.
In my view, amount of ` 1 lac is sufficient as the same is in addition to the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner stands maintained. However, he is allowed the concession of probation on his furnishing bail bonds to the tune of `20,000/- with one surety in like amount for a period of one year for keeping peace and be of good behaviour. A sum of ` 1 lac be deposited within 15 days before the trial Court and the same shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Amar Singh after giving them due notice. In case the petitioner fails to pay the said amount and in case of breach of any condition of the bail bonds, he shall be called upon to undergo his remaining part of sentence.
Disposed of accordingly.
MAY 30, 2014 (K. C. PURI)
shalini
Bhatia Shalini
JUDGE
2014.06.04 14:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh