Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

This Revision Petition was admitted on the question of sentence only.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that both the Courts below have erred in not considering as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be released on probation of good conduct, or not. He states that special reasons had to be recorded under section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for not releasing the petitioner on probation of good conduct as contemplated under section 360 of the Code. He argues that though six persons had died in the accident, the petitioner deserves the concession of being released on probation of good conduct as he is neither a previous convict nor habitual offender; and is a youngman of about 27 years having five children apart from his parents to look after. He also craves the indulgence of this Court of the release of his client on probation of good conduct on the basis of the report of the District Probation Officer called for by this Court regarding the antecedents of the petitioner being in his favour and helpful to him. It is stated by the District Probation Officer, Bhatinda in the report that the conduct of the petitioner seems to be good, as the Members of the Municipal Committee and other respectables have good opinion about the conduct of the petitioner; and that he has no opposition in the area or locality where he resided. Mr Deol further submits that the accident did not take place due to the fault of the petitioner. In any case, I am not allowing the learned counsel to argue the case on merits, as the Revision Petition was admitted qua sentence only.

The learned counsel has also cited Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal, 1979 Cri. LJ 84, Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 643; Nasru v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 ACJ 916, Sikander Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992 ACJ 9 and Criminal Revision No. 775 of 1991 (Gurbinder Singh alias Dulla v. State of Punjab decided on January 27, 1992, to substantiate his arguments.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the case from all aspects as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on probation of good conduct under section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or not. Concededly, the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor habitual offender and the report of the District Probation Officer is also favourable to him, but taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner after the accident, I have not been able to persuade myself to release the petitioner on probation of good conduct under the provisions of section 360 of the Code. It has come in evidence that petitioner ran aways after the accident and he did not take care to look after the injured persons. He did not make any effort to get them to the hospital or to help them in any manner whatsoever when six persons had already died. The court generally takes into account the conduct of the accused after the accident and as to whether he was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. In this case, the conduct of the accusedpetitioner who ran away after causing the accident is far from satisfactory and not commendable. After taking into consideration the factual position as stated above. I do not consider it a fit case in which the petitioner can be realised on probation of good conduct.

I am informed at the bar that the petitioner has already undergone more than seven months'' imprisonment in jail. Keeping in view the report of the District Probation Officer as well as the factum that the petitioner is the only bread winner of a large family. I feels ends of justice would be met if the conviction is maintained and the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. I order accordingly. He shall be released forthwith. The sentence of fine is also set aside.

This Revision Petition and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2699 of 1992 are disposed of in the abovesaid terms.