The High Court cannot grant probation under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when an appeal against conviction is pending, emphasizing the jurisdictional limits of the appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.:- The hereinafter extracted reference is required to be answered by this Bench:

“Can this Court, especially in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Baldev Singh’s case (supra), in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, release a convict on probation of good conduct for any term of his imprisonment, even where the matter has been ‘compromised’ by the convict with the legal heirs of the deceased, where the convict has been convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to any term of imprisonment, when his appeal is still pending before the appellate Court?”

2. However, before proceeding to render an answer to the above extracted reference, the relevant facts are also required to be set forth.

3. The facts relevant for answering the above extracted reference are that, the alleged penal event took place on 02.11.2013, at about 04:30 p.m., on the roadside leading from Kandhargarh Chhanna to Chhintanwala. The said penal event becomes encapsulated in FIR No.264 dated 03.11.2013, registered under Sections 304-A and 279 of the IPC, at P.S. Dhuri Sadar, District Sangrur. The allegation(s) set forth therein against the petitioner are that, while he was driving with his family in an Alto car, thereby the said Alto car struck against one Jagdish, who was then standing on the roadside. However, the petitioner stopped his car and took the injured Jagdish in his car to Civil Hospital, Dhuri, so that thereins he becomes purveyed medical treatment. However, the said injured succumbed to the injuries in the hospital concerned.

4. On conclusion of the trial, as became entered against the petitioner, the learned trial court concerned, vide order dated 06.08.2016, drew a verdict of conviction against the petitioner, thus for an offence punishable under Section 304-A and also for an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC. Moreover, the learned trial court concerned, through drawing an order of sentence of even date, proceeded to impose upon the convict/ petitioner, the hereinafter extracted substantive sentences of imprisonment and of fine amount:

5. The aggrieved convict/petitioner preferred thereagainst an appeal bearing No.CRA-4684-2016 before the learned Sessions Court, Sangrur. Significantly, the said criminal appeal is subjudice before the learned Sessions Court, Sangrur.

6. Conspicuously, during the pendency of the criminal appeal (supra), a compromise occurred amongst the convict/petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased Jagdish, whereby, the convict/petitioner was led to institute the present petition, wherebys he espoused for the quashing of the FIR (supra), besides espoused for setting aside the verdict of conviction and the consequent thereto order of sentence (supra), as became imposed upon him.

7. However, this Court is not required to be entering into the realm appertaining to “whether the present petition seeking the above reliefs is amenable for being allowed”. Importantly, when the scope and ambit of the reference (supra) does not require the rendition of an answer to “whether given the verdict of conviction and the consequent thereto sentences becoming imposed upon the conviction/petitioner, vis-a-vis, the charges drawn against him, both under Sections 304-A and 279 of the IPC, thus are required to be annulled on the basis of a compromise, which has occurred amongst the concerned, but, during pendency of an appeal reared by the convict/petitioner against the verdict of conviction and the consequent thereto order of sentence (supra), before the learned Sessions Court, Sangrur”. Emphasizingly s