Whether approved for reporting?, (1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.)

For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Ms. Avni Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision, against the judgment, dated 5th December, 2013, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2009, titled as Gurdev Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh.

Vide judgment, dated 5th December, 2013, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction, dated 18th March, 2009 and order of sentence, dated 19th March, 2009, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Police Challan No.238-II of 2004, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Gurdev Sharma.

The learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, has convicted petitioner Gurdev Sharma for the offences punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) and sentenced him, as under:-

(i) For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; and

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 185 of M.V. Act, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The learned trial Court has directed the sentences, so awarded, to run concurrently.

Today, the convict, vide his separate statement, has stated that he does not want to press the present petition, against the judgment of conviction, dated 18th March, 2009, however, he has prayed that he may kindly be released on probation, by modifying the order of sentence dated 19th March, 2009. He has also deposed that he is the sole bread earner of his family, comprising his mother, wife and three children.

The judgment of conviction, dated 18th March, 2009 and the order of sentence, dated 19th March, 2009, passed by the learned trial Court, perused.

As per the said order, the learned trial Court, has not considered the question of releasing the convict on probation. The learned Appellate Court has also not considered this question.

The report of the Probation Officer perused.

In this case, the report of the Probation Officer has been called for. In the report, the Probation Officer has recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the convict, vide his report, dated 21st November, 2025.

Now, the question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is about the fact as to whether the relief of probation can be extended to the convict.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana, (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 82, has categorically excluded Section 304-A IPC. Relevant paragraphs-13 and 14 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

“13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the P.O. Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when

Click Here to Read the rest of this document