Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 28.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 July, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2025:HHC:25023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. : 255 of 2011
.
Decided on : 28.07.2025
Kishori Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr.
Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat & Mr. Varun
Chandel, Additional Advocates
General, and Mr. Rohit
Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
Virender Singh, Judge.
PetitionerKishori Lal has preferred the present
revision petition, against the judgment, dated 19 th
November, 2011, passed by the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Appellate Court'), in Criminal Appeal No.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:25023
24 of 2010, titled as Kishori Lal versus State of Himachal
Pradesh.
.
2. Vide judgment, dated 19th November, 2011, the
learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the convict'), which he
had preferred against the judgment of conviction, dated
18th February, 2010 and order of sentence, dated 22 nd
February, 2010, passed by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Court No.I, Sundernagar, District
Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the
'trial Court') in Police Challan No.752I/2002 (322
II/2002), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus
Kishori Lal.
3. The learned trial Court, vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, has
convicted the convict for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), as under:
(i) For the offence punishable under Section
279 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/;
3 2025:HHC:25023
(ii) For the offence punishable under Section
337 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/; and
.
(iii) For the offence punishable under Section
338 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one year and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/.
In default of payment of fine, the convict has
been directed to further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
The learned trial Court has also directed the sentences, so
awarded, to run concurrently.
4. Today, the convict, vide his separate statement,
has stated that he does not want to press the present
petition, against the judgment of conviction, dated 18 th
February, 2010, however, he has prayed that he may
kindly be released on probation, by modifying the order of
sentence dated 22nd February, 2010. He has also deposed
that he is the sole bread earner of his family, comprising
his parents, wife and two children.
5. The judgment of conviction, dated 18 th
February, 2010 and the order of sentence, dated 22 nd
February, 2010, passed by the learned trial Court,
perused.
4 2025:HHC:25023
6. As per the said order, the learned trial Court,
has not considered the question of releasing the convict on
.
probation, whereas, the learned Appellate Court has
considered this question. However, in view of the decisions
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh versus State of
Haryana, (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 82, and
Thakur Singh versus State of Punjab, (2003) 9
Supreme Court Cases 208, the said relief has been
declined to the convict.
7. In this case, the report of the Probation Officer
has been called for. In the report, the Probation Officer
has recommended to extend the benefit of probation to the
convict, vide his report, dated 23rd June, 2025.
8. Now, the question, which arises for
determination, before this Court, is about the fact as to
whether the relief of probation can be extended to the
convict.
9. As stated above, the learned Appellate Court, in
this case, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Dalbir Singh's case (supra), to decline
the relief of probation, to the convict.
5 2025:HHC:25023
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dalbir Singh's
case (supra), has categorically excluded Section 304A IPC.
.
Relevant paragraphs13 and 14 of the judgment, are
reproduced, as under:
"13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in
road accidents in India and the devastating
consequences visiting the victims and their
families, criminal courts cannot treat the
nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC
as attracting the benevolent provisions of
Section 4 of the P.O. Act. While considering
the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the
offence of causing death by rash or negligent
driving of automobiles, one of the prime
considerations should be deterrence. A
professional driver pedals the accelerator of
the automobile almost throughout his working
hours. He must constantly inform himself that
he cannot afford to have a single moment of
laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the
pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot
and should not take a chance think that a
rash driving need not necessarily cause any
accident; or even if any accident occurs it need
not necessarily result in the death of any
human being; or even if such death ensues he
might not be convicted of the offence; and
lastly that even if he is convicted he would be
dealt with leniently by the court. He must
always keep in his mind the fear psyche that
if he is convicted of the offence for causing
death of a human being due to his callous
driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail
sentence. This is the role which the courts can
play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for
lessening the high rate of motor accidents due
to callous driving of automobiles.
6 2025:HHC:25023
14. Thus, bestowing our serious consideration
on the arguments addressed by the learned
counsel for the appellant we express our
inability to lean to the benevolent provision to
.
Section 4 of the P.O. Act. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed."
11. Even, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the power of the Court to
extend the benefit of probation, depends upon the nature
of offence committed. In this regard, relevant paragraphs
8 to 10, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:
"8. Parliament made it clear that only if the
court forms the opinion that it is expedient to
release him on probation for his good conduct
regard being had to the circumstances of the
case. One of the circumstances which cannot
be sidelined in forming the said opinion is "the
nature of the offence."
9. Thus Parliament has left it to the court to
decide when and how the court should form
such opinion. It provided sufficient indication
that releasing the convicted person on
probation of good conduct must appear to the
court to be expedient. The word "expedient"
had been thoughtfully employed by the
Parliament in the section so as to mean it as
"apt and suitable to the end in view". In
Black's Law Dictionary the word expedient is
defined as "suitable and appropriate for
accomplishment of a specified object" besides
the other meaning referred to earlier. In State
of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri , AIR (1974)
SC 2233, a three Judge Bench of this Court
has considered the word "expedient". Learned
Judges have observed in paragraph 21 thus:
(SCC p. 145)
7 2025:HHC:25023
"Again, the word 'expedient' used in this
provisions, has several shades of meaning. In
one dictionary sense, 'expedient' (adj.) means
.
'apt and suitable to the end in view', 'practical
and efficient'; 'politic'; 'profitable'; 'advisable',
'fit, proper and suitable to the circumstances
of the case'. In another shade, it means a
device 'characterized by mere utility rather
than principle conducive to special advantage
rather than to what is universally right' (see
Webster's New International Dictionary)."
10. It was then held that the court must
construe the said word in keeping with the
context and object of the provision in its widest
amplitude. Here the word "expedient" is used
in Section 4 of the P.O. Act in the context of
casting a duty on the court to take into account
"the circumstances of the case including the
nature of the offence.........". This means
Section 4 can be resorted to when the court
considers the circumstances of the case,
particularly the nature of the offence, and the
court forms its opinion that it is suitable and
appropriate for accomplishing a specified
object that the offender can be released on
probation of good conduct."
12. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Dalbir Singh's case (supra), has again been considered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State through Central
Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch,
Chandigarh versus Sanjiv Bhalla and another, reported
in (2015) 13 Supreme Court Cases 444. Relevant
paragraph28, of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
8 2025:HHC:25023
"28. To sum up:
28.1. For awarding a just sentence, the trial
Judge must consider the provisions of the
.
Probation of Offenders Act and the provisions
on probation in the Criminal Procedure Code;
28.2 When it is not possible to release a
convict on probation, the trial Judge must
record his or her reasons;
28.3. The grant of compensation to the victim
of a crime is equally a part of just sentencing;
28.4. When it is not possible to grant
compensation to the victim of a crime, the trial
Judge must record his or her reasons; and
28.5. The Trial Judge must always be alive to
alternative methods of a mutually satisfactory
disposition of a case."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Paul George
versus State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2008) 4
Supreme Court Cases 185, has released a person, who
has been convicted, under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. It
would be profitable to reproduce relevant paragraph12 of
the said judgment, as under:
"12. This litigation has been going on for the last
20 years and has been fought tenaciously
through various courts, we are also told that the
appellant who has had a good career throughout
but for this one aberration has since been
dismissed from service on account of his
conviction. We, therefore, while dismissing the
appeal, feel that the ends of justice would be met
if we direct that the appellant be released on
9 2025:HHC:25023
probation under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 on conditions to be imposed
by the trial court. The appeal is disposed of in
the above terms."
.
14. This Court, in cases, titled as Ram Rattan
versus State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 1989 (1)
Sim.L.C. 359, and State of H.P. versus Khushal Singh &
Anr., reported in 1997 (2) Cur. L.J. (HP) 235, has
released the
persons, on probation, who
convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
r had been
15. Similarly, in Criminal Revision No. 151 of
2011, titled as Nand Kishore versus State of Himachal
Pradesh, decided on 4th October, 2016, this Court has
released a person, who was convicted, for the offences,
punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.
16. In view of the decisions, as referred to above,
there is no legal hesitation for this Court to extend the
benefit of probation, under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offender's Act, to the convict.
17. The report of the Probation Officer perused.
18. Perusal of the report of the Probation Officer
shows that FIR No.287/01, dated 3.9.2001, under Sections
10 2025:HHC:25023
201 IPC and Section 187 of MV Act, with Police Station
Sundernagar and FIR No.131/13, dated 21.5.2013, under
.
Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 187 of the M.V.
Act, with Police Station Sarkaghat, were registered against
the convict, however, he has been acquitted in both the
cases.
19. The Probation Officer has specifically mentioned
that the conduct of the convict, during past years, in the
society, is good.
20. The offences, for which, the convict has been
convicted, are not punishable with death or imprisonment
for life. The convict is having the permanent abode in
District Mandi, as per the report of the Probation Officer.
The convict has already faced the agony of the trial,
including the pendency of the appeal, as well as the
revision petition, for the last twenty three years.
21. Our Criminal Jurisprudence System is
reformatory in nature. With the passage of time, it has
been realized that sending the first offender to jail, to
undergo substantive sentence, does not produce good
11 2025:HHC:25023
results, as, the first offender/convict, sometimes, may
come in contact with the hardened criminals.
.
22. The probation is a kind of noncustodial
sentence, by giving an opportunity to the convict to reform
himself, while abiding by certain conditions, imposed by
the Court, for a certain period. It is a reformatory measure
to achieve the object, by giving an opportunity to the
convict, to reform himself, instead of directing him to
undergo substantive sentence.
23. The convict is the first offender and the sole
bread earner of his family. Rejecting the prayer of the
convict to release him on probation, would amount to
punishing his family members, for the offences, committed
by the convict.
24. Considering the nature of the offences, this
Court is of the view that it would be expedient to release
the convict on probation of good conduct, instead of
directing him to undergo substantive sentence, as imposed
by the learned trial Court.
25. Considering all these facts, the revision petition
of the convict is dismissed against the judgment of
12 2025:HHC:25023
conviction, however, in view of the discussions made
above, the order of sentence is ordered to be modified.
.
Instead of directing the convict to undergo the substantive
sentence, he is directed to be released on probation of good
conduct, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
₹ 50,000/, with one surety of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, to keep peace and be
of good behaviour, for a period of two years and to receive
the substantive sentence, as and when, called upon to do
so, during the period of two years.
26. The convict is also directed to deposit a sum of
₹ 20,000/, which shall be in addition to the fine amount,
already deposited by him, in this case, with the learned
trial Court, within a period of one month from today. The
said amount of ₹ 20,000/ shall be paid to all the injured
persons, in equal shares, as compensation, by the learned
trial Court, after issuing notices to them, in this regard.
27. It is clarified that in case of violation of any of
the conditions, so imposed, including the terms and
conditions of the requisite bonds, the order of sentence
shall revive automatically, without reference to this Court.
13 2025:HHC:25023
In that eventuality, the convict is directed to surrender
before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive
.
sentence.
28. In view of the above, the revision petition is
partly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
are also disposed of accordingly.
July 28, 2025 ( ps )
r to ( Virender Singh )
Judge
