BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) 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 for 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, Bathinda 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.

(3.) The learned counsel has also cited Bishnu Dec Shaw v. State of West Bengal, Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana, Nasru v. State of Rajasthan, Sikander Singh v. State of Punjab, Gurbinder Singh alias Dulla v. State of Punjab to substantiate his arguments.