Banwari Lal Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dt. 11.10.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur (for short, 'the learned appellate Court') whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dt. 26.08.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pipar City (for short 'the learned trial Court') was dismissed and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, which was as under: - The brief facts of the case are that on 04.11.1994, deceased Amar Singh and petitioner were travelling on a Motor -vehicle and the petitioner was driving the same. While driving the Motor vehicle in rash and negligent manner, dashed it with a wall due to which deceased Amar Singh, who was pillion rider on the said vehicle, fell down and sustained serious injuries and thereafter succumbed to the injuries. The learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner and he accepted the charge and admitted that he drove the vehicle negligently due to which, accident occurred and deceased died. Considering this fact, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned appellate Court, which was dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned trial Court was affirmed. Hence, this revision petition.
(2.) HEARD Mr. S.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Rawal, learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the charges were framed against the petitioner in absence of his counsel before the learned trial Court which petitioner accepted. Thus, both the Courts below have committed illegality while passing the impugned orders and prayed that the petitioner be discharged from the offences. In alternate, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread earner in his family. There is no previous conviction of petitioner, therefore , he should have been given the benefit of probation for which both the Courts below wrongly denied.
(3.) PER contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the petitioner himself admitted his guilt of negligence.;