In determining the sentence for an offender, courts must consider the offender's character, antecedents, and other relevant factors, including age, character, antecedents, and tractability to reform.

Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length as also the learned counsel for the State. This is an application under sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner, Subal Chandra Roy, against the opposite party State of West Bengal seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 10th January, 1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar, in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1994 and/or to pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.

The facts leading to the present revisional application may be summarised as follows:-

Upon a petition of complaint lodged by one Taleb Mia, Kotwali Police Station Case No. 25 of 1989 was started under sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the present accused petitioner, Subal Chandra Roy, alleging therein that the accused petitioner on 27th January, 1989 at about 10-30 a.m. caused accident to one Manotosh Das who was carrying a generator machine in his Thela and another Taleb Mia who was going with another Thela carrying different articles, due to rash and negligent driving of a bus on Torsa Bridge which was then driven by the aforesaid accused-petitioner.

The accused-petitioner after trial was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Sadar), Cooch Behar. The accused-petitioner was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for two months for commission of offence under section 304A I.P.C.

2. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence an appeal was preferred being Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1991 and the said appeal was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge maintaining the conviction but on the ground of sentence the case was sent back to the court below for complying with provision of section 360 Cr. P.C. or invoking the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Again the learned Magistrate, by his impugned order dated 27.12.93 has rejected the prayer of the accused-petitioner holding, inter alia, that benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or provision of section 360 Cr. P. C. could not be granted to the accused-petitioner. Against that order, the accused petitioner again preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1994 which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar on 10.1.1995 holding, inter alia, that the accused-appellant was not entitled to the benefit of probation.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal, the present revisional application has been directed alleging that while considering the matter regarding grant of benefit either under section 360 Cr. P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, both the courts below have placed their reliance only on the offence itself and both the courts below have failed to consider the other aspects incidentally attached to such offence for grant of benefit either under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act or under section 360 of Cr. P.C. and as such, there has been miscarriage of justice for which interference by this court is necessary. Hence, this prayer.

3. I have heard the parties at length over this issue. I have also gone through the judgements of courts below with meticulous care. From the perusal of the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has placed his reliance on a decision of Guwahati High Court reported in 1990 Cri. L. J. 2500 in Kantilal Shiva Bhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat and at the same time observed that situation available in the case, reported in 1993 Cri. L. J. 119, cited by the petitioner/appellant was somewhat different from the present case.

I have gone through the aforesaid two judgements together with the judgement of the Apex Court as reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 291 in the case of Keshau Sitaram Sali vs. State of Maharashtra as also another decis