JUDGMENT :

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.”) has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI (PC ACT) – 06, Central District, Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi (“Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 265/2017 titled as “Pramod Kumar Kushwaha vs. State of NCT of Delhi”, and also against the judgment dated 29.06.2017 and order on sentence dated 24.11.2017 passed in the case titled as “State of Delhi vs. Pramod Kumar Kushwaha” by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Central District, Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”) in Case No. 293117/2016, arising out of FIR bearing No. 14/2003 registered as Police Station (“PS”) for offences punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2003 at about 10:50 pm, the present petitioner, i.e., Parmod Kumar Kushwaha, along with his colleague technician Inder Mani Sharma (deceased), during the work allotted to them by their company, had reached at Ground Floor, Minto Road Hostel, Block No.1, Delhi, to repair the defective lift no.1. While the petitioner had gone to the machine room on the 12th floor of the hostel building, Inder Mani Sharma had stayed at the ground floor and was in the lift shaft trying to find fault in the lift. The petitioner had suddenly put the lift in motion without giving prior intimation to his colleague, who was trapped in the lift shaft and as a result, he had lost his life due to rash and negligent behaviour of the petitioner. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed, and charges under Section 304-A IPC were framed against the petitioner.

3. The learned Trial Court vide judgement dated 29.06.2017 had convicted the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC and vide order dated 24.11.2017, had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased equally under section 357(3) Cr.P.C., and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Benefit of probation was denied to the convict.

4. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court vide judgement dated 05.09.2018, while upholding the conviction under Section 304-A IPC, reduced the petitioner's sentence from two years of rigorous imprisonment to one year. However, the amount of compensation was ordered to remain the same, as well as the period of imprisonment in case of default thereof.

5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is not pressing his petition as far as conviction under Section 304-A IPC is concerned. However, it was stated that the order of sentence be modified, and the petitioner be granted benefit of probation. It is argued that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family consisting of his wife, who is a housewife, a son and a daughter. The petitioner’s family is solely dependent on the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has no previous criminal involvements.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fine imposed by the learned Trial Court, i.e., Rs. 1,40,000/-, has already been paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as per order dated 24.11.2017 and the wife of the deceased has placed an affidavit on record that a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- has been received by her. Further, a copy of the receipt and order of the Trial Court regarding the deposit of Rs.40,000/- has also been placed on record. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also suffering from various age–related ailments and has undergone surgeries. It is stated that the petitioner is a first-time offender and is entitled to be considered for grant of probation. Further, reliance has also been placed on Sect