Paramjit Singh vs The State of Punjab

S.K. Jain, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated November 21, 1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Appeal No. 49-T of 23.1.1991/92 filed by Paramjit Singh, petitioner herein, against the judgment dated 10.1.1991 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha thereby covicting him u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out certain infirmities in the statements of Sohan Singh PW11 and Jarnail Singh PW10 with regard to time of the accident; identity of the driver; and date on which the offended tempo was taken into possession. These infirmities are not material and do not render the impugned judgment incorrect, irregular, improper much less illegal and, therefore, no fault can be found''. The same is affirmed.

Lastly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a poor young mann of 32 years and was not a previous convict. He had old parents, young wife and infant children to feed and, therefore, he be given benefit of the probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

I have taken into consideration the following facts:

(i) that the petitioner was a young man of 32 years;

(ii) that he was merely a driver with meagre income;

(iii) that he remained on bail during the trial;

(iv) that there is nothing to show that he had misused the concession of bail granted to him during the said period ;

(v) that he was the first offender;

(vi) that his old parents, young wife and infant children were dependent on him and if he is sent to jail, the above said members of his family will have to face starvation as he was the sole bread-earner for his family; &

(vii) that if he is sent to Jain he is likely to mix up with hardened criminals lodged therein and there is every likelihood of his himself becoming a hardened criminal.

In view of the above circumstances, I feel that it is a fit case where the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 be exetended to him. I, therefore, direct that petitioner be released or entering into a bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha, to appear and receive sentence when called up during a period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The First Informatin Report in this case was recorded on 3.1.1989 and the accused was convicted and sentenced on 10.1.1991. The State has spent a lot in prosecuting the accused by examining a number of witnesses, officials and non-officials, during the course of trial which took almost two years, The State had also defended the appeal against the order of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, I direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,5000/- as costs of the proceedings. The amount of Rs. 500/- imposed by the learned trial Magistrate as fine, if deposited by the petitioner will be adjusted towards the above said samount of costs of proceedings. On recovery of the above said amount of Rs. 10.500/- as costs of proceedings, Rs. 10,000/- will be paid to the heirs of the deceased after notice to them.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.