##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 143 of 2015

Decided on : 31.12.2025

Tek Bahadur

…Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P.

…Respondent

___________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

________________________________________________

For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr.

O.C. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl.

h A.G., for the respondent-State.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

H Petitioner has filed the present Criminal

Revision, against the judgment, dated 1.5.2015,

passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan,

District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 7-S/10 of

2013, titled as ‘Tek Bahadur versus State of H.P.’.

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:03:40 :::CIS

2

2. Vide judgment, dated 1.5.2015, the learned

Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the.

petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the convict’),

against the judgment of conviction andH order of

sentence, dated 1.4.2013, passed by the Court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District

Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

3. By virtue of judgment of conviction, and order

of sentence, dated 1.4.2013, the learned trial Court

has convicted the convict, for the 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

i 1 279 IPC Rigorous Simple Imprisonment

H imprisonment for one month.

for three months

and to pay a fine of

Rs. 1000/-

2 337 IPC Rigorous Simple Imprisonment

imprisonment for for 7 days

a period of one month

and to pay a fine of

Rs. 500/-

3. 338 IPC Rigorous Simple imprisonment

imprisonment for for a period of two

a period of months

six months and to pay

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:03:40 :::CIS

3

a fine of Rs. 1500/-

4. The instant Cr. Revision has been admitted

for hearing by this Court, vide order, dated 3.6.2015.

5. Vide order, dated 29.8.2025, this Court has

ordered to call for the report of the Pr obation Officer.

In sequel thereto, the report of thoe Probation Officer

has been received.

6. Today, the petitioner/convict has stated that

he does not want to press the instant revision petition,

filed against the judgment of conviction and prayed

that the petitioner/convict may be released on

probation, as he is the sole bread earner of the family,

consisting of his old parents and children.

i5. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence,

dated 1.4.2013 passed by the learned trial Court, perused.

6. As per the said order, the learned trial Court, as

well as, learned Appellate Court, have not considered the

question of releasing the convict on probation. However, in

view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalbir

Singh versus State of Haryana, (2000) 5 Supreme Court

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:03:40 :::CIS

4

Cases 82, and Thakur Singh versus State of Punjab,

(2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 208, the said relief has

been declined to the convict.

7. 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 off probation to the

convict.

8. 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.

9. 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

i accidents in India and the devastating

H 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

caus