Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(2)ALT(CRI)21, 1995CRILJ3819
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
ORDER Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Heard.
2. This revision petition came up for admission before this Court on 6-7-1995. Notice of motion why petition be not admitted, was restricted to the question, whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of provisions of the probation of offenders Act and/or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The facts giving rise to the case are that on 20-7-1991 at about 8-45 a.m., the petitioner was driving bus No. PJG-7394 in the area of village Panjgrian. The bus hit against the tractor No. PAS-4644 resulting into the death of Malkiat Singh and injuries to Gurnam Singh. The petitioner was challaned under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of the IPC. After the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under Section 304A, IPC. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Sections 337 and 279 of the IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the accused preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 15-6-1995.
From the judgment it appears that the question with regard to release of the petitioner on probation was not even argued before the Court of Sessions. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge, has not dealt with the same.
4. As already noticed in the order dated 6-7-1995 passed by me, the judgment of the Courts below does not suffer from any legal error and is sustainable in law and on facts. Thus the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Court below is hereby maintained.
5. The purpose of providing benefit to an accused under these provisions is primarily to give another chance to the accused to improve his conduct and to live as a better human-being in the society. The seriousness of the offence, the conduct of the accused and the likelihood of his repeating the offence are the basic criteria which were normally weigh with the Court while granting or refusing such benefit to the accused.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1982 CAR 5 (SC), (Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh), where the accused-appellant in that case was allowed the benefit of probation without affecting the service career of the driver. It was observed by the Supreme Court as under:--
"The Sessions Judge had found that there was some amount of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case we think it is eminently a fit case in which the appellant may be released on probation."
The learned counsel also relies upon other cases reported as Gobind Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1978 Chandigarh Law Reporter 255 and Sadhu Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1983 (1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 420. In these cases the FIRs were registered against the State Transport drivers under Sections 304A, IPC etc., but they were ordered to be released on probation by the orders of this Court.
7. On the other hand, the State counsel has relied upon the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 (1) Recent Criminal Reports page 1 and submitted that the principles laid down in the said judgment are that the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr. P.C. are not applicable to such cases.
8. I find it difficult to uphold the contention of learned counsel for the State as in the same judgment it was because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the Court had declined to give the benefit of Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr. P. C. to the accused in that case. The learned Judge in para No. 7 of the judgment indicated the following reasons :--
"These offences are on the increase by leaps and bounds and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 360 and 361, Criminal Procedure Code, are to be applied to such cases only in a very rare and exceptional circumstances. The case in hand, in my view, is not of that kind."
Thus the benefit to the accused in that case was declined keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as two young children had lost their lives, and 8 others were injured. At the same time there can be no two opinions that the benefit of Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr. P.C. and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act can neither be granted as a matter of rule nor can be declined as a matter of rule. Each case must be dealt with on its own merits. In the present day when the road accidents are certainly on the increase, the Courts will have to apply reasonable caution while granting such benefit to the accused in these cases.
9. Keeping in view the fact that most judgments of this Court, some of which have not been referred by me in this order, indicate that if the circumstances were not of very serious nature, the accused was granted the benefit of these pro visions. In the present case the statement of PW 4 does not attribute total negligence to the driver. He is the only eye witness and the person on whose statement the case was registered against the petitioner.
10. Keeping in view the above facts and upholding the judgment and sentence awarded by the Courts below it is hereby ordered that the petitioner be released on probation for the remaining sentence subject to his furnishing a bond of good behaviour for a period of seven years from the date of execution of the bond. In the event the said petitioner is involved and is convicted in any other case, this order of benefit of probation under the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Cr. P.C. read with the provisions of probation of offenders Act, shall be deemed to be withdrawn and he shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction to undergo the remaining sentence. The bonds to be furnished to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17-7-1995 for complying with the directions of this Court. Interim directions issued on 6-7-1995 shall continue till 17-7-1995.
With the above observations, this case stands disposed of. Copies of the order be given dasti.