Nasri Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
probation of offenders act, 1958 - section 4--amarlal case does not lay down general preposition that in all automobile accident cases accused be sentence for one year with fine of rs. 15,000/- in lieu of sentence accused be given benefit of probation under section 4.;the decision in amar lal v. state, s.b. criminal revision petition no. 65/83 decided on 6.5.87 does not lay down a general preposition though, in all automobile accident cases there should not be lesser punishment than one year's imprisonment and a fine of rs. 15,000/-.;in lieu of sentence imposed the petitioner is given the benefit of the provisions of s. 4 of the probation of offenders act.;revision partly allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year.v.s. dave, j.1. this order is in continuation of the order which was passed by this court on 27th july, 1987 when i had referred the matter to the division bench, as i differed with the observations made in amar lal v. state by my learned brother hon'ble lodha j., as then he was, framing the following question:whether the decision in the aforesaid case lays down a general preposition that in all automobile accident cases there should not be a lesser punishment than one year punishment and a fine of rs. 15,000.hon'ble the chief justice placed the matter before the division bench which answered the question vide its order dated 11th july,1988 as under:the decision in amar lal v. state, s.b. criminal revision petition no. 65/83 decided on 6.5.87 does not lay down a general preposition though, in all automobile accident cases there should not be lesser punishment than one year's imprisonment and a fine of rs. 15,000.the case should have been listed immediately after the reference was answered, but it appears that the registry remitted the record to the trial court along with the order of the division bench considering it to be a final order in the case and it was learned addl. sessions judge no. 1, alwar who sent this case back to this court for disposal on merits.2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record for the purposes of considering mitigating circumstances as to whether the lesser punishment should be, imposed than the one given by the courts below or the accused may be dealt with under the provisions of probation of offenders act.3. the incident has taken place in this case almost 12 years before and the accused had remained in custody for some time during investigation and then after his appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court. in view of the fact that appeal has already been dismissed on merits, i am not inclined to comment upon the facts of the case but still can not refrain from observing that site plan ex.p. 3 which has been prepared, coupled with the circumstances existing on the spot do indicate the negligence on the part of the petitioner so that requires to be taken note of for the purposes of reduction of sentence. the fact that cycle on which the deceased was sitting has also not been crushed, is yet another circumstance which does indicated that the petitioner did make an attempt to save the deceased. he had also not run away from the place of occurrence and tried to explain the circumstances which of course did not find favour with the two courts below and this court being court of revision, would not disturbed the finding of facts. however, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case ends of justice would meet in case amount of compensation which has been awarded as rs.1500/- to the complainant by the trial court is increased to rs. 10,000/- in lieu of the sentence imposed.4. the result of the aforesaid discussion is that this revision is partly allowed. the conviction of the accused-petitioner is maintained but in lieu of sentence imposed the petitioner is given the benefit of the provisions of s.4 of the probation of offenders act. his sentence is set aside provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of rs. 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. he shall also deposit a sum of rs. 10.000/- as compensation to be paid to ram dayal. the amount shall be deposited in the court within a period of four months from today. in case the amount is deposited within the aforesaid period the trial court shall ensure that the money is paid to the complainant within a period of a fortnight of its being deposited. in case the petitioner does not deposit the money in the aforesaid period or fails to seek extension of time before the expiry of the aforesaid period from this court, he shall serve court the remaining sentence imposed on him by the courts below. in case the bond is executed and money of compensation, is deposited the bail bonds and surety bond executed earlier shall stand cancelled.