IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 CRR-1604-2012 (O&M)

Date of decision: 12.12.2025 Shinderpal Singh ....Petitioner Versus U.T. of Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. M.S.Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Viren Sibal, APP for U.T. Chandigarh.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the instant revision petition is to the judgment dated 16.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 01.07.2009 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC has been dismissed.

2. The facts, which are necessary for adjudication of the present case are that on 25.04.2003, complainant-Noyal Masih with his younger brother Royal Masih was going towards Sector-15, Chandigarh on separate scooters. When they reached near the dividing road of Sector 36/37 Chandigarh, a car bearing No.CH-03-8025, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, coming from the side of Batra Chowk, hit the scooter of his brother, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained several injuries on his body and died on the way to the hospital. Thereafter, the FIR was registered.

3. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court against the accused-petitioner. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 279 and 304-A and 185 of Motor Vehicle Act were framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 7 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 CrPC whereby incriminating evidence was put to him, which he denied and pleaded false implication. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.

5. The trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case, and accordingly convicted the petitioner-accused for an offence under Sections 279 and 304A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.5000/-.

6. Aggrieved accused-petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby his appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 16.05.2012.

7. Hence, the present revision petition.

8. Learned counsel, at the outset, submits that the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition on merits and prays for extending the benefit of probation under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in view of the mitigating circumstances being that, the incident pertains to the year 2003; the petitioner is a 75 year old retired professor; he has already undergone 21 days out of the sentence awarded; never misused the concession of bail and is a first time offender.

9. Learned counsel for U.T. Chandigarh submits that the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner on the evidence produced by the prosecution. However, on the above-stated grounds, he has no objection if the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed. He also affirms that during the period on bail, he never misused the same.

10. Heard and perused.

11. Evidently, complainant-Noyal Masih-PW1, stated that the car was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, who had been identified and in his cross-examination stated that he had asked his name at the spot of accident, in which his brother sustained injuries, leading to his death. Thus, the Courts below have properly examined the evidence and rightly convicted the petitioner.

12. As regards the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it would be apposite to make a reference to Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which reads thus:

“4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.-

(1) When a