VASWA NAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing CrLA. No. 171 of 1996 arising out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistra te held the petitioner guilty under Sections 279 / 338/ 304-A, IPC and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months; imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 338, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months; imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 304-A, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but submits that this is a fit case where accused can be admitted to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the incident took place as far back as on 1.5.1986. The petitioner has been facing the ordeal of trial for over 15 years and that he has now settled down as useful citizen raising children of the family and that there has been no untoward incident nor any complaint against him. He further submits that the petitioner has been on bail since 6.9.1999 after suffering incarceration. Learned Counsel for the State submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case he would not be averse to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act being extended to the petitioner.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having given my careful consideration to the material available on record, I am of the view that in the present case, the petitioner has suffered the agony of trial lasting for about 15 years. Besides that, he has already undergone some period in custody. There is no allegation that the petitioner is previous convict. Keeping these circumstances in mind and the fact that the offence of which the petitioner has been convicted is not punishable with life imprisonment, he deserves the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.