MAHAVIR PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHAVIR Parshad petitioner while driving Rajasthan. Roadways bus bearing registration No. RNE 8529 rashly and negligently caused the death of Guran Ditta cyclist near the bus stop of village Neza Dela on the evening of 26th of September, 1985 at about 5.30 P. M. He was tried and convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, whereas regarding his conviction under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently vide order of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa dated 11th of January, 1991. His appeal was dismissed vide order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 23rd of December, 1991. This revision petition was admitted only for consideration of sentence awarded to the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the petitioner is employed with Rajasthan Roadways as a driver. That he had no ill will or enmity with the deceased and because of imprisonment, he may lose his job. It was further submitted that the petitioner may be released on probation of good conduct after taking into consideration the age, antecedents and the fact that the petitioner was employed as a driver with Rajasthan Roadways, may lose his job in case he remains in jail. The counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 10,000/ - to be paid as compensation to the next heirs of Guran Ditta deceased.

(3.) TAKING into consideration, facts and ci rcumstances of the case that the petitioner is not stated to be a previous convict; that he is employed with Rajasthan Roadways and may lose his job in case he remains in jail, in my opinion, it is a fit case to release the petitioner on probation of good conduct in case he deposits Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation to, be paid to the next heirs of Guran Ditta in the trial Court within two months from today. In case the petitioner complies with this condition, he shall be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years under the Probation of Offenders Act subject to his furnishing adequate surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court, undertaking to keep peace, be of good behaviour and undertake to appear in the Court as and when directed to receive sentence during the aforesaid period of probation. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of compensation within the stipulated period then he shall undergo the remaining period of his sentence as directed by the Courts below. This petition is disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be given Dasti. Petition disposed of.