ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 16.8.1990, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, holding the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to undergo further RI for one month, as well as against the judgment dated 12.5.1992, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, whereby his appeal against the aforementioned conviction and sentence was also dismissed.

(2.) THIS criminal revision petition came up for hearing on 2.6.1992 and while admitting the same, the petitioner was admitted to bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar.

(3.) WHILE assailing the finding returned by the Courts below in relation to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and/or being responsible for causing the accident in question, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Swaran Singh, PW is a relation of the deceased whereas PW Gurdev Singh was not shown present by the complainant in his first and untutored version as contained in Ex. PE/1. It is argued that if the eye- witness account of these two persons is discarded, there is overwhelming evidence on record to suggest that the bus was being driven at a normal speed and the deceased all of a sudden came in front of the bus and was himself responsible for the accident. Alternatively, Sh. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1988 and at that time the petitioner was about 47 years of age. It is argued that during the interregnum, namely, when the trial was pending and/or after his conviction when the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before the appellate or the revisional Court, he has already retired from service and is now an old person of more than 60 years of age. It is argued that out of total sentence of 9 months awarded by the Courts below, the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of about one month and at this juncture of life, it will neither serve the cause of justice nor of equity if he is subjected to undergo remainder of the sentence. It is, thus, argued that it is a fit case for invoking power under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR(Crl.) 310.