State (U.T.Chandigarh)

R.L. Anand, J.

Heard. For the reasons stated in the application and also in the interest of justice, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed.

The State (U.T. Chandigarh) has filed the present revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 1.8.1998 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who while maintaining the conviction of the respondent under Sections 279 and 304A IPC released him on probation for a period of two years on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Further the learned Sessions Judge granted compensation of Rs. 5,000/ to the next of the kin of the deceased. The reasons given by the learned appellate Court are contained in para Nos. 5 and 6 of the order, which are reproduced as under :

"5. However, the appellant has prayed for leniency. I have heard the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor on the nature and quantum of punishment. The appellant is a young man and first offender. He has made clean breast of his guilt. He is repentent and has assured to be more careful while driving in future. The offence under sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He has already undergone agony and ignominy of public trial for about six years. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a fit case where the benefit of probation should be given to the appellant.

For the reasons stated above, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the learned trial court is set aside. Instead, it is directed that the appellant, be released on probation for a period of two years, on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ with one surety in the like amount, undertaking that he shall appear in the court to receive sentence, as and when directed to do so during the said period of two years and that in the meanwhile, he shall keep peace, and be of good behaviour. He is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/ to the next of kin of the deceased. In case the compensation is deposited in this court, notice shall be issued to the next of kin of the deceased to collect the same from this court."

Aggrieved by the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, the present revision, which of course was barred by limitation by 77 days and I have condoned the delay in the interest of justice.

I have heard Mr. R.S. Rai, Advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellant and with his assistance I have gone through the record of this case.

I am totally not convinced with the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge while granting the probation to the respondent. He has bartered away the life of an individual against a consideration of Rs. 5,000/, which was to be paid to the next of kin of the deceased. This court has come across several orders passed by the learned trial courts/appellate courts where a very frequent use has been made of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The orders are sought to be justified by awarding some compensation here or there to the family of the deceased. Recently one order came across to this court which was interfered by me in Criminal Appeal No. 693SB of 1998 titled State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh on 20.4.1999 and this court held that there was no substitute to the human life. Also it was stated in the said order that the life of a human being should not be seen with disrespect. Race, of course, gives thrill to the drivers but its impact is very dangerous and fatal. It takes the lives of innocents for no fault of theirs. The human life is not so cheap that it can be bartered away by the subordinate courts on unsustainable reasons. Day in and day out we find that the lives of innocent persons who have equal right to utilise the roads are taken away at the hands of the persons who are not trained in the art of good driving. Such traffic violations are at an alarming speed. Before granting the probation by the lower courts a good amount of premises has to be built before resorting these provisions. Of course, awarding of punishment is in the discretion of the court, but this discretion has to be exercised according to judicial principles. Even in the impugned order a compensation of Rs. 5,000/ which has been awarded to the next of kin of the deceased cannot be said to have given solace to the family of the deceased.

To interfere in the impugned order at this stage perhaps will give an unnecessary edge to the State over the respondent whose right had already been adjudicated by the Court of Session. Therefore, I am not inclined to issue notice of this revision to the respondent. But definitely this court is of the opinion that the law courts should be guided in such like cases to deal the offenders. Otherwise the valuable lives of human beings can always be put at peril by negligent drivers who drive the vehicles on the public roads in a rash and negligent manner.

With the dismissal of this appeal, I direct the Registry to send a copy of this order to Mr. B.S. Bedi, Sessions Judge, Chandigarh for his information and future guidance, whose attention is also invited to the citations AIR 1987 SC 861 (State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju) and 1980 Cri.L.J. 11 (Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab) and also the order dated 20.4.1999, which has already been ordered to be circulated amongst all the judicial officers of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.