IMPORTANT POINT
A judgment in a criminal case is a judgment in personam and not judgment in rem, so it cannot lay down any general law.

JUDGMENT

Bhargava, J -This revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, under section 304-A I.P.C.

2. This revision petition came up for admission. Learned Single Judge (Mrs. Kapur J.) was of the opinion that it does not call for any interference in revision with regard to the merits of the Case but she admitted the revision petition on the ground of sentence in view of a decision of this Court in Amar Lal v. State of Rajasthan1. When this revision petition came up for final disposal before Hon'ble V.S. Dave, J. after hearing the arguments at length, he passed detailed order dated 27-7-87 referring the following question for consideration by the larger bench:

“Whether the decision in the aforesaid case lays down a general proposition that in all automobile accident cases there should not be a lesser punishment than one year's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000/-.

Therefore; this matter has "come” up 'before" us. Since this is a very important question, we though it proper to issue notice to 1 he learned counsels, inviting them if they wanted to submit arguments on the above question.

3. We have heard S/Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar and R.M. Lodha, for the petitioner, Mr. H.C. Rastogi for the complainant. In our humble opinion, there was no necessity of making any reference to larger bench as a judgment in a particular case by High Court cannot lay down a general proposition to apply in all similar cases. Generally, a judgment in a criminal case is a judgment in personam and not judgment in rem nor can it lay down any general law. However, since detailed submissions have been made, we shall like to mention them as under':

Criminal Revision Petition No. 65/83 Amar Lal v. State was a revision petition against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, confirming the sentence passed by the trial Court, convicting the accused Amar Lal under section 304-A IPC and sentencing him to one year's R.L and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, further 2 months' S.I. While disposing of this revision petition, Hon'ble G.M. Lodha, as he then was, passed the order dismissing the revision petition and made very strong observations that there should be a minimum sentence of one year's R.L and a fine of Rs. 15,000/for offences under/section 304-A I.P.C. which has raised the present controversy.

Section 304-A I.P.C. reads as under:

"Causing death by negligence. -Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

4. Mr. Dhankhad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of section 360 Cr. P.C. and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, since the maximum punishment is of two years, benefit of probation should be given to an offender who is found guilty under section 304-A IPC and if the Court does not give the benefit of probation, it has to record special reasons for not having done so, and in this connection, he has drawn our attention to observations of the Supreme Court in Bishnu Deo Shaw' v. State of West Bengal2, wherein it has been observed that if the Court refrains from dealing with an offender under section 360 Cr. P.C. or under the provisions of the probation of Offenders Act, section 361 Cr. P.C., which is a new provision in the 1973 Code, makes it obligatory for the Court to record in its judgment special reasons for not doing so. Section 361 Cr. P.C. casts a duty upon the Court to apply the provisions of section 360 Cr. P.C. wherever it is possible to do so and to state the special reasons if it does not do so.

5. Our attention has also been drawn to Aitha Chander 'Rao v. State of Andhra Praliesh3, in which the accused was convicted under section 304-A I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, by the Sessions Judge, and affi