242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ASHOK KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Mr. Arvind Kumar Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present revision is preferred against the judgment dated 27.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the judgment of conviction dated sentence dated Magistrate, Bahadurgarh No.268 dated 19.11.2004 at Police Station mentioned below: Offence under Section(s) 304-A of IPC 279 of IPC 337 of IPC 338 of IPC It was ordered that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ASHOK KUMAR V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. **** SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present revision is preferred against the judgment dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, , whereby the judgment of conviction dated sentence dated 22.07.2014 passed by the learned Bahadurgarh, have been upheld in the case stemming from FIR 19.11.2004 registered under Sections 279/ at Police Station City Bahadurgarh. The petitioner w mentioned below: Offence under SI for one year with a fine of Rs. of which, to undergo SI for 02 months. SI for 02 months with a fine of Rs.500/ SI for 06 months with a fine of Rs.500/ It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-864-2015 Date of decision: 21.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate with Mr. Arvind Kumar Dhiman, Advocate Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. The present revision is preferred against the judgment dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, , whereby the judgment of conviction dated 18.07.2014 and order of passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial , have been upheld in the case stemming from FIR registered under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of IPC . The petitioner was sentenced as Sentence with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of which, to undergo SI for 02 months. with a fine of Rs.500/-. with a fine of Rs.500/-. sentences shall run concurrently. in default MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-864-2015 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Pankaj stated that cousin brother was going to Railway Station, Bahadurga brother, namely Chanchal, on a motor Roadways bus bearing No.HR negligent manner, hit their motor the complainant, Chanchal suffered injuries and later on succumbed to death. Hence, FIR (supra 3. After Court convicted and sentenced the 18/22.07.2014. before learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts below have further contends that as all three of them were on the road on t of triple riding, as such, the petitioner is not liable to be convicted in the present case. He further submits that there are no other allegations against the petitioner, except the allegation that the bus was driven PW-4, namely, Naveen has also not levelled any allegation of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, as such, there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner and the accident took place due to negligent driving by the deceased-Chanchal. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that he has been convicted by 2 In brief, the case of the prosecution is that stated that on 19.11.2004 at about 10:15 was going to Railway Station, Bahadurga brother, namely Chanchal, on a motor-cycle driven by Chanchal, bus bearing No.HR-46A-9715, driven by the petitioner gligent manner, hit their motor-cycle from behind. Due to which, brother of the complainant, Chanchal suffered injuries and later on succumbed to death. supra) was registered. After assessing the material available on record, the learned t Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment and order dated Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner before learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts below have fallen into grave error by convicting the petitioner. He further contends that the complainant himself admitted that they were at fault, as all three of them were on the road on their motor of triple riding, as such, the petitioner is not liable to be convicted in the present case. He further submits that there are no other allegations against the petitioner, except the allegation that the bus was driven 4, namely, Naveen has also not levelled any allegation of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, as such, there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner and the accident took place due to negligent driving by the Chanchal. Per contra, learned State counsel learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that he has been convicted by In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant- 10:15 AM, when he along with his was going to Railway Station, Bahadurgarh for dropping his cycle driven by Chanchal, a Haryana 9715, driven by the petitioner in rash and cycle from behind. Due to which, brother of the complainant, Chanchal suffered injuries and later on succumbed to death. assessing the material available on record, the learned trial vide judgment and order dated petitioner preferred an appeal, before learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned into grave error by convicting the petitioner. He the complainant himself admitted that they were at fault, heir motor-cycle and thus were guilty of triple riding, as such, the petitioner is not liable to be convicted in the present case. He further submits that there are no other allegations against the petitioner, except the allegation that the bus was driven at a fast speed and 4, namely, Naveen has also not levelled any allegation of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, as such, there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner and the accident took place due to negligent driving by the , learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that he has been convicted by MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-864-2015 the learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. Moreover, the convic Court, as such interference by this Court is not warranted. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than conviction, the petitioner has grown live a peaceful life. Moreover, the petitioner has already undergone custody period of five months and five days 7. Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empower the courts to release the offend the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 as under:- “6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct.....” A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 Kishan Kaul, has held as under: “6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Th 3 the learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. Moreover, the conviction has been upheld by the learned lower Appellate interference by this Court is not warranted. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than conviction, the petitioner has grown into law- live a peaceful life. Moreover, the petitioner has already undergone custody five months and five days. Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 722 speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held “6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct.....” A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2021) 2 SCC 763 speaking through Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, has held as under:- “6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and the learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. tion has been upheld by the learned lower Appellate interference by this Court is not warranted. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 20 years. Since his -abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Moreover, the petitioner has already undergone custody Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ers on probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned therein. A two Judge Bench of the Som Dutt and others Vs. State of Himachal speaking through Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held “6....having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, it is directed that the appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct.....” A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhvir speaking through Justice Sanjay “6. We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to us, increasing emphasis on the reformation and MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-864-2015 rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved.” Further still, a Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 has opined as follows: “15. sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar laws for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Section clause, giving overriding effect over any other provisions of law. 16. statutes, we find that the addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders” 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Banal AIR 1979 SC 964 the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is overarching object of the provision contained in Section and Sections 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time offenders to reform and not expose them in association with the har and habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant revision petition is 4 rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved.” Further still, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 opined as follows: We find that the attention of the Court was not drawn to sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar laws for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Still further, Section 4 of the 1958 Act ha clause, giving overriding effect over any other provisions of law. The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the we find that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are in addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or ilitation of youthful offenders” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo Shah Vs. State of West Banal AIR 1979 SC 964 has laid down that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is overarching object of the provision contained in Section 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time offenders to reform and not expose them in association with the har and habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant revision petition is disposed of in the following terms: 1) The judgment dated 27.02.2015 Additional Sessions Judge, confirming the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved.” of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakahnlal @ Lakahn Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 100 attention of the Court was not drawn to sub Section (10) of Section 360 which provides that Section 360 will not affect the provisions of 1958 Act or other similar laws for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful of the 1958 Act has a non obstante clause, giving overriding effect over any other provisions of law. The conjoint reading of the provisions of both the provisions of Section 360 of the Code are in addition to the provisions of the 1958 Act or the Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or Bishnu Deo Shah Vs. State of has laid down that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to deal with a convict under the provisions of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., if he is not convicted for an offence punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and additionally, if he is not a previous convict. The overarching object of the provision contained in Sections 4 and 6 of the Act 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. is to provide an opportunity to the first time offenders to reform and not expose them in association with the hardened and habitual criminal inmates incarcerated in the judicial custody. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant disposed of in the following terms:- 27.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Jhajjar confirming the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-864-2015 10. Needless to say in view of the Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, 18/22.07.2017 Bahadurgarh, which have been upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, vide judgment dated any way, to get entitled to. May 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 5 2) The order of sentence dated learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, modified to the extent of granting the concession of probation to the petitioner for good conduct. 3) The petitioner shall be released on probation for good conduct on furnishing a personal bond of surety for the same amount furnishing an undertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. 4) The petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforesaid period. the petitioner fails to comply with the said directions or commit breach of the undertaking be called upon to undergo the sentence imposed upon the learned trial Court. Needless to say in view of the Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated passed by learned Sub Divisional , which have been upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, , vide judgment dated 27.02.2015, shall not be a hurdle to any way, to get retiral benefits and other service benefits to which (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable The order of sentence dated 22.07.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, is modified to the extent of granting the concession of probation to the petitioner for good conduct. shall be released on probation for good conduct on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with a surety for the same amount within four weeks, after furnishing an undertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the shall remain under the supervision of the during the aforesaid period. If to comply with the said directions or commit breach of the undertaking rendered by him, he shall be called upon to undergo the sentence imposed upon him by Needless to say in view of the Section 12 of Probation of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, , which have been upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, shall not be a hurdle to petitioner, in benefits and other service benefits to which he is HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.23 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment