Open iDraf
Shankar Hiraman Chavan v. State of Maharashtra

Shankar Hiraman Chavan
v.
State of Maharashtra

(In The High Court Of Bombay At Nagpur)

Criminal Review Application No. 64 Of 2016 | 07-12-2018


Oral Judgment:

1. Heard Shri J.S. Wankhede, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri H.R. Dhumale, learned APP for the non-applicant.

2. The applicant was prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Pusad, for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that on 18.06.1994 at about 15.45 hours on the road in front of Rural Hospital, Umarkhed, Pusad, caused the death due to rash and negligent driving, not amounting to culpable homicide.

3. The applicant was driving S.T. Bus rashly and negligently and dashed to Nitin s/o Ashokrao Deshmukh. He was prosecuted by the Police for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The J.M.F.C. tried the accused/ applicant and held him guilty but given him the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 3. The said judgment of trial Court was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

4. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused (applicant). He drove S.T. bus rashly and negligently and dashed to the deceased. He is rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Instead of sending the applicant in jail, the learned J.M.F.C. shown leniency and given benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, dismissed the Appeal.

5. The learned APP has strongly supported the impugned judgment.

6. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to the judgment of conviction, there may be some obstacle to receive retiral benefits.

7. The learned J.M.F.C. has taken lenient view by applying provisions of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Both the courts below held the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the I.P.C. but lenient view is taken by giving admonition as provided under Section 3 of the Act. Once the benefit is given as per Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, then there is no disqualification due to conviction. Section 12 itself is very clear, which reads as under :

“12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law :

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.”

8. In view of the specific provision in Section 12 of the Act, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the conviction will come in the way for retiral benefits is not correct. The impugned judgments of the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, are well reasoned and, therefore, Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Criminal Revision is dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Applicant J.S. Wankhede, Advocate. For the Respondent H.R. Dhumale, APP.

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G. GIRATKAR

Eq Citation

2018 BHC 1836