Himachal Pradesh High Court: In an application seeking release of the applicant on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘the Act’), Rakesh Kainthla, J.*, opined that it was not permissible to grant the benefit of the Act in an offence which involved rash and negligent driving and accordingly, dismissed the application.
In an instant case, at the time of the commission of an offence, the applicant was of twenty-nine years. However, currently he was in a regular government job and also, was married and had two school going children. The applicant’s wife was posted as a clerk in the office of Sub Divisional Collector and the applicant’s mother was dependent upon him.
It was stated in the application that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and he was also acquitted in a criminal case which was registered against him vide FIR dated 03-04-2011. It was also stated that the applicant had face trial for five years and he had already spent eighteen years in litigation. Hence, the benefit of the Act should be granted to the applicant.
The Court relied on Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, wherein it was held that the benefit of the Act could not be granted to a person convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and also, relied on Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 9 SCC 208; State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182 and opined that it was not permissible to grant the benefit of the Act in an offence which involved rash and negligent driving and accordingly, dismissed the application.
[State of Himachal Pradesh v. Subhash Chand, 2023 SCC OnLine HP 1617, decided on 08-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Rakesh Thakur, Advocate;
For the Appellant: Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
