Farooq Hasan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The accused-petittioner has been found guilty for the offence Under Section 304A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to one year Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupeses one hundred).
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition, are that on 27-8-1979 one Puran S/o Kanhiya, resident of Harijan Basti, New Mandi, Bharatpur lodged a report at the Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur to the effect that Suraj and his father Kanhiya were going in a rickshaw from his house to the house of Collector, Bharatpur. On the way near Cimmco Waggon Factory a jeep No. RJD 3751, which is said to have been driven by the petitioner, collided with rickshaw as a result of which Suraj died on the spot and his father Kanhiya sustained grievous injuries who also succumbed to injuries.
3. On the basis of the said report F.I.R. was chalked out at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur for the offence Under Section 304A IPC and after investigation a challan was filed against the accused-petitioner. The learned trial Court found the accused-petitioner guilty for the offence Under Section 304A IPC. Aggrieved against the order/judgment dated 24-11-1984 of the Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpar the accused-petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed. Both the Courts below found that the Jeep was driven by the petitioner with rashly and negligently. After perusal of the entire record I also find that the Jeep collided from behind the rickshaw. At the time of accident the rickshaw was going infront of the Jeep. Under these circumstences if the Jeep collided with the rickshaw then this much can be drawn that the petitioner, while driving the Jeep, did not care to drive the vehicle carefully otherwise chances were there to avoid the accident.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the findings of the subordinate Courts. He merely submits that the accused-petitioner earns his livelihood by driving the vehicles and he is the only earning member in his family. So, in case the petitioner is sent to serve out the sentence passed against him then a lot of hardship shall be faced not only by the petitioner but by his family members.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the accused-petitioner remained in jail for about four months. He further submits that looking to the antecedents and character of the petitioner, he may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. In support of the submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following cases; Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan. 1990 RCC page 363 and Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan. (1990 RCC page 421). In view of the principle laid down in the above cited cases and the fact that the accident has taken place in the year 1979 which is almost Eleven years back on the fact that the petitioner is a Government servant and the point of granting the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act have not at all been considered by the subordinate Courts. So, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should also be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act Under Section 4 of the Act but at the same time I feel if just and proper that compensation should also be awarded to the heirs of deceased persons Under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
6. For the reasons given and inview of the principles laid down in the case of reported in 1979 SC page 964 it is ordered that the conviction of the petitioner is maintained but insteed of passing any sentence the petitioner be released on probation and he is directed to furnish & personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur with this condition that he will keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months failing which the petitioner shall serve out the sentence passed against him by the trial Court. The petitioner is further directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each to L.R. of deceased heirs with in a period of three months failing which the trial Court will issue warrant of arrest of the petitioner to serve out the sentence under challenge in this appeal. The trial Court is directed to inform the legal heirs of the deceased (Suraj and Kanhiya Lal) to get the amount of compensation after its deposits in the Court, which should ensure payment of compensation to proper person.
7. Consequently, this petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The petitioner is a driver in the Irrigation Department so the conviction recorded against him will not in any way effect the service career of the petitioner and it is expected that the department shall not initiate any disciplinary action against him.