S.S.GRAWAL, J. - (1.) KRISHAN petitioner was convicted under section 304-A of the IPC by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, vide his order dated 8th September, 1989 and vide his order dated 9th September, 1989, the petitioner wag sentenced to undergo R 1. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, be was further ordered to undergo R I for two months. On appeal, the order of conviction and sentence was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide his order dated 16th October, 1989.
(2.) CRIMINAL Revision filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below was admitted by this Court only qua sentence to be awarded to the petitioner and for consideration whether benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be granted to him or not. In brief, facts of the Prosecution case are that on 24th September, 1996, Surinder Kumar was going on a scooter and his friend Surjit Singh was driving the scooter whereas Surinder Kumar was sitting on the pillion seat. The accident took place near village Jharsa when truck No. DEL 3767 came from apposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the scooter which fell down and both the riders sustained injuries. The truck driver stopped his truck for a short while. In the meanwhile Surinder Kumar was able to note down the number of the truck. Both the injured were subsequently removed to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon. Since the condition of Surjit was quite serious he was referred to Safdarganj Hospital, Delhi. Injuries of Surjit subsequently proved fatal. After investigation the petitioner was challaned, convicted and sentenced by the Courts below as detailed above.
(3.) COUNSEL for the parties were heard. On behalf of the petitioner it was mainly submitted that the petitioner was less than 21 years of age at the time the accident took place and that he is not a previous convict and may be released on probation of good conduct. Impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. would indicate that the petitioner was slightly above 21 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. Taking into consideration his young age, his antecedents and the facts that he has already undergone agony of trial for more than three years, in my opinion, it is a fit case to give benefit of Probation of Offenders' Act to the petitioner.;