IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No.227 of 2015

Decided on : 08.01.2026

Pawan Kumar ……Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. f ….Respondent

________________________________o________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virende r Singh, Judge

Whether approved for reportting?

________________________________________________________

For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr.

Sidharth, Advocate, vice Mr.

Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S.

Rawat, Additional Advocate

General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy

Advocate General.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Petitioner has filed the present Criminal

Revision, against the judgment, dated 03.01.2011, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in

Criminal Appeal No.27/07, titled as ‘Pawan Kumar versus State of H.P’. .

2. Vide judgment, dated 03.01.2011, the learned Appellate Court has partly accepted thHe appeal, filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the convict’), against the judgmoent of conviction dated 28.07.2007 and order of se ntence, dated 31.07.2007, passed by the Court orf learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

3. By virtue of judgment of conviction dated 28.07.2007 and order of sentence, dated 31.07.2007, the learned trial Court has convicted the convict, for ithe commission of offence, punishable under Sections

279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced him as under:

Sr. No. Section Imprisonment Default 1 279 IPC Simple Simple imprisonment Imprisonment for a for a period of one period of six months month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-

4. The instant Cr. Revision has been admitted for hearing by this Court, vide order, dated 07.09.2015.

5. Vide ordeur, dated 15.12.2025, this Court has ordered to call for the report of the Probation Officer. In sequel thereto, the report of the Probation Officer has been received.

6. Today, the petitioner/convict has stated that he does not want to press the instant revision petition, filed iagainst the judgment of conviction and prayed that he may be released on probation, as he is the sole bread earner of the family, consisting of his wife and two children.

7. The judgment of conviction dated 28.07.2007 and order of sentence, dated 31.07.2007, passed by the learned trial Court, perused.

8. As per the said order, the learned trial Court, has not considered the question of releasing the convict on probation.

9. However, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana, (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 82, f and Thakur Singh versus State of Punjab, (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases

208, the said relief has beetn declined to the convict.

10. 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 07.01.2026.

1h1. Now, the question, which arises for determination, gbefore this Court, is about the fact as to whether the relief iof probation can be extended to the convict.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalbir Singh’s case (supra), 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 deterren.ce. A professional driver pedals the acceleHrator