CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) Reserved on : 16.01.2026 Pronounced on : 20.01.2026 Ishwar Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.36 dated 30.01.2000 was lodged in Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. Once the FIR was lodged, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the petitioner was sent to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’, to face trial for the commission of abovementioned offence. 3. The petitioner participated in the abovementioned trial, which by virtue of judgment dated 03.11.2006 culminated into his conviction and by virtue of order on quantum of sentence, dated 06.11.2006, the petitioner was sentenced as under:- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 2 Name of convict Offence under Sections Sentence Ishwar Singh 279 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 304-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions. The abovementioned appeal has been decided by the Court of learned Sessions Judge Bhiwani, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’. The appeal preferred by the petitioner did not find favour in the Appellate Court, and the same had been dismissed by virtue of judgment dated 01.12.2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment of conviction dated 03.11.2006 and order of sentence dated 06.11.2006, passed by the learned trial Court, and also of the judgment dated 01.12.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Court, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 6. In nut-shell, the facts as contained in the record are that the FIR of this case (Ex.PW4/A) came into being in view of statement dated 30.01.2000 (Ex.PW1/A) of Gobind Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on that day, he was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.HR-46-0143 along with Satish S/o Sadhu Ram, and when the bus was at a distance of one GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 3 kilometre from his village, he noticed that his cousin Raju @Raj Kumar was going on scooter bearing registration No.HR16-A-9186. According to complainant, the driver of abovementioned bus was accused Ishwar Singh, who was driving the bus at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. It was further alleged by the complainant that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, the bus hit the scooter of Raju @Raj Kumar, who suffered multiple injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries suffered by him, on the spot itself. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, got the dead body of deceased Raju @Raj Kumar examined, collected the post-mortem report and completed other usual formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed. 8. To GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 4 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 5 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 6 in the instant revision petition, the petitioner is not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically contended that at this stage, by virtue of present petition, the petitioner is only challenging the order on the quantum of sentence. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is around 70 years old, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 7 who has already retired from service, and he has clean record, he craves for the benefit of probation/admonition. 17. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not a habitual offender and that instant prosecution is the only prosecution faced by the petitioner in his entire life. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant case is a fit case, wherein in view of the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, he is entitled for the benefit of probation/admonition, firstly because of his old-age, secondly because of his conduct subsequent to the present offence, as he has not indulged in any kind of criminal activity, and thirdly because of the nature of offence committed by the petitioner as there was no mens rea behind the commission of offence. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the principles of law laid down by this Court in CRR-2697-2025 titled as ‘Lakshay Jain V/s State of Punjab & Anr.’ and in CRR-1683-2002 titled as ‘Sardool Singh V/s State of Punjab’. 18. The abovementioned arguments have been controverted by the learned State Counsel. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304-A of IPC, and that because of the offence committed by the petitioner, a valuable human life has been lost. As per learned State Counsel the loss caused to the family of deceased cannot be compensated by any kind of compensation etc. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the petitioner, i.e. imprisonment for a period of one year, is already on lower side, and that the petitioner is not entitled for a sentence of imprisonment for a period of less than one year. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 8 The learned State Counsel has further contended that the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner renders him ineligible for any lenient view. According to learned State Counsel, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of probation/admonition. In support of his arguments, the learned State Counsel has placed relied upon the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘State of Punjab V/s Balwinder Singh & Ors.’ 2012(2) SCC 182, and by this Court in ‘Shinderpal Singh V/s U.T. of Chandigarh’ 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 17378. 19. The arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties have been duly considered and the record has been perused carefully. 20. As far as the present revision petition is concerned, there are two points, which are supposed to be determined by this Court: i) Whether the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to proving of charge against the petitioner, needs interference and indulgence of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ii) If first point is answered against the petitioner, whether the petitioner is entitled for benefit of probation/admonition. POINT NO.I 21. As far as this point is concerned, at the threshold it is relevant to mention here that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to judgment of conviction, have not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. Otherwise also, the record has been perused carefully and a perusal of evidence adduced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court shows that the abovementioned evidence was thoroughly consistent, reliable and good enough to bring home GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 9 charge against the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A of IPC. It is also relevant to mention here that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, vis-à-vis the learned Appellate Court are well-reasoned. Thus, it is hereby held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to conviction of petitioner under Sections 279/304-A of IPC, affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 22. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed, and as an outcome of abovementioned finding, the point of determination No.1 framed in this petition is hereby answered against the petitioner. POINT NO.II 23. With regard to above point of determination, it is relevant to mention here that similar question has been dealt with by this Court in the case of ‘Lakshay Jain’ (supra). In the abovementioned case, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A of IPC, the petitioner (Lakshay Jain) was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. However, this Court accorded the benefit of probation to the petitioner in that case. 24. Similarly in the case of ‘Sardool Singh’ (supra), the benefit of probation was accorded to an accused, who had faced charge for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 of IPC, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. The abovementioned benefit was given to the accused in the abovementioned case by taking into consideration that he had already faced the agony of trial for a period of 11 years. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 10 25. In another case, i.e. Shinderpal Singh (supra), the similar benefit has been given to an accused against whom charge for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A of IPC was proved. 26. In a recently pronounced judgment, i.e. in Criminal Appeal No.2133 of 2025 titled as ‘Sanjay Colaro V/s State of Karnataka’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India gave the benefit of probation to the accused, who was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304-A of IPC. 27. The abovementioned principles of law squarely cover the factual matrix of the present case. As far as the benefit of probation is concerned, the relevant principles have been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar’ (1972) 2 SCC 633. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while considering the scope of the Probation Act has held as under: - “The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. The above object is in consonance with the present trend in the field of penology, according to which effort should be made to bring about correction and reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to retributive justice. Modern criminal jurisprudence recognises that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 11 the product of socioeconomic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their association with hardened criminals. The Act gives statutory recognition to the above objective. It is, therefore, provided that youthful offenders should not be sent to jail, except in certain circumstances. Before, however, the benefit of the Act can be invoked, it has to be shown that the convicted person even though less than 21 years of age, is not guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. This is clear from the language of Section 6 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of that section reads as under: - “When any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life), the Court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it would not be desirable to deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4, and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so.” 28. The similar question was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a subsequent judgment, i.e. in the case of ‘Chellammal and Another v. State’ 2025 SCC OnlineSC 870. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under: - “On consideration of the precedents and based on a comparative study of Section 360, Cr. P.C. and subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 12 latter is wider and expansive in its coverage than the former. Inter alia, while Section 360 permits release of an offender, more twenty one years old, on probation when he is sentenced to imprisonment for less than seven years or fine, Section 4 of the Probation Act enables a court to exercise its discretion in any case where the offender is found to have committed an offence such that he is punishable with any sentence other than death or life imprisonment. Additionally, the non-obstante clause in subsection gives overriding effect to sub-section (1) of Section 4 over any other law for the time being in force. Also, it is noteworthy that Section 361, Cr. P.C. itself, being a subsequent legislation, engrafts a provision that in any case where the court could have dealt with an accused under the provisions of the Probation Act but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons therefor. What logically follows from a conjoint reading of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act and Section 361, Cr. P.C. is that if Section 360, Cr. P.C. were not applicable in a particular case, there is no reason why Section 4 of the Probation Act would not be attracted. Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 13 the stated circumstances. The question of grant of probation could be decided either way. In the event, the court in its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may upon considering the report of the probation officer impose such conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for the court to record the reasons therefor.” 29. Taking into consideration that the facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered by the principles of law propounded in the abovementioned cases, it is hereby held that instant case also is a fit case, wherein the petitioner, who is almost 70 years old having no history of other conviction of similar offence, and also faced agony of trial for the last almost 26 years, is entitled for the benefit of probation/admonition. As an outcome of abovementioned observations, the point of determination No.II framed in this petition is hereby answered accordingly, i.e. in favour of petitioner. CONCLUSION: 30. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the plea of the petitioner with regard to benefit of probation deserves to be accepted. Consequently, by partly accepting the present revision petition, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby modified and the benefit of probation is accorded to the petitioner. He is directed to furnish the requisite bonds of good behaviour to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani. Once the bonds are executed, the petitioner would be released on probation for a period specified by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani. Obvious to say that in case of any offence committed by the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2319-2007 (O&M) 14 petitioner during the period of probation, he shall have to undergo the sentence awarded in this case. 31. The revision petition stands disposed of, accordingly. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 20.01.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.20 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document