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 of 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, Bhatinda 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 Deo Shaw V. State of West Bengal, 1979 CrLJ 841, Ved Prakash V. State of Haryana, 1981 AIR(SC) 643 Nasru V. State of Rajasthan, 1989 ACJ 916, Sikander Singh V. State of Punjab, 1992 ACJ 196 and Criminal Revision No. 775 of 1991 (Gurbinder Singh alias Dulla V. State of Punjab decided on January 27, 1992, to substantiate his arguments.