STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals, being Criminal Appeals Nos. 304-SB, 333-SB and 334-SB of 1980, have been filed at the instance of the State of Punjab seeking enhancement of sentence. These are against three separate judgments and orders of Shri Gurdev Singh, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga. Since a common question of law has been raised therein, it could be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. Yet their facts have to be separately detailed, which are done hereafter.

(2.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 304-SB of 1980, respondent Harbans Lal was being prosecuted for offence under Section 337, Indian Penal Code, before the said Magistrate. The allegations against him were that on 24-11-1977 he had driven his bus No. PUF-5360 rashly and negligently so as to cause hurt to two persons namely, Sukhdev Singh and Atma Singh; to the latter by striking against his tractor. Some formal prosecution evidence had been led at the trial. On 16-1-1980, when further prosecution evidence was to be led, the respondent made an application admitting the allegations of the prosecution. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was satisfied that the confessional statement of the accused was voluntary and without any pressure. He, therefore, convicted him for the offence under Section 337, Indian Penal Code. On the question of sentence, he found that the accused-respondent was a first offender and was about 45 years of age. In view of the circumstances of the case and the confessional statement of the accused-respondent, he took a lenient view and ordered the respondent to be released on probation under Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as the new Code) on a bond operative for a term. The respondent was also required to pay Rs. 400/- as costs under Section 5 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Act payable equally to both the injured persons.

(3.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 333-SB of 1980, Surjit Singh had been charged to face trial under Section 25 of the Arms Act before the same Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Initially he pleaded not guilty to the charge but on 15-1-1980, the date fixed for prosecution evidence, he made a statement admitting the allegations of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused-respondent on being satisfied that the confessional statement was voluntary. Finding that the respondent was less than 21 years of age and a first offender as also that he had confessed his guilt, he took a lenient view and ordered the accused-respondent to be released on probation under Section 360 of the new Code on a bond as envisaged therein. At the same time he required the respondent to Pay Rs. 100/- as costs under Section 5 (b) of the Probation of Offenders Act.