Amin Chand vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

Amin Chand petitioner, was convicted vide order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, dated 2921992 under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to Pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous Imprisonment for three months. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, by the trial court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appeal filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate was dismissed vide order of Addl. Sessions Judge Patiala, dated 10 91993.

Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition, which was admitted only regarding sentence imposed upon the petitioner.

In brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29th November, 1988, Maghar Singh PW and Gurdas Ram (deceased) were proceeding from Patiala to their village Nalina Kalan on separate cycles. Gurdas Ram was going ahead of Maghar Singh. At about 6.30 P.M when they reached near fish farm of Nandpur Kesho, Fiat Car PAP7999 driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and dashed against the cycle of Gurdas Ram. As a result of the said collision, Gurdas Ram fell down and died at the spot, Case was reported to the police. After completion of the investigation, the petitioner was challaned tried, convicted and sentenced by the courts below as indicated above.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the petitioner, it was mainly contended that the petitioner in mid thirties; not a previous convict and he is the only bread winner of his family and way be released an probation. It was further submitted that the petitioner has also undergone agony of trial for about four years in the trial court and that this appeal also remained pending for about a year or so and that lenient view may be taken.

Taking into consideration the age, antecedents and over all circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that the petitioner who is the only bread winner of his family and, works as a car driver, has already undergone agony of trial for a considerable period, in my opinion, it is a fit case to give him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in order to reform him. The petitioner is accordingly directed to be released on Probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of two years, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ with the surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner shall undertake to keep peace, be of good behaviour and further undertake to appear before the court during the aforesaid period of probation to receive sentence, as and when called upon to do so. The petitioner is also directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/ as compensation in the trial court, within two months from today failing which the order the granting probation to the petitioner shall be deemed to be vacated and the orders of the courts below shall be deemed to have been restored. In case the compensation of Rs. 10,000/ is deposited by the petitioner as already directed, the trial court shall disburse the said amount to the nearest legal heirs of the deceased Gurdas Ram. The fine, if already paid, would be adjusted towards the payment of compensation This petition is disposed of accordingly.