Karnataka High Court
M Devaraju vs State By Traffic Police on 6 March, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9308
CRL.RP No. 1113 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1113 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
M. DEVARAJU.,
S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
KSRTC BUS DRIVER, HASSAN DEPOT,
R/O MARENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MOSALEHOSAHALLI POST,
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
STATE BY TRAFFIC POLICE,
Location: HIGH CHIKKMAGALUR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
8.7.2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., HASSAN IN
CRL.A.NO.108/2011 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.9.2011
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9308
CRL.RP No. 1113 of 2015
C.C.NO.568/2010 AND THE PETR. TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE
OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST HIM.
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the aforesaid
offences. The challenge to the judgment of conviction was affirmed
by the First Appellate Court. Hence, this revision petition.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a
driver in KSRTC, and on 09.04.2007, when he was driving the Bus
belonging to the KSRTC, CW-1 sustained injuries due to the rash
and negligent driving of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Rajbir Vs. State of
Haryana1 wherein the accused therein was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC was granted
probation, since the accused therein was the Government servant,
and the Apex Court observed that his conviction shall not affect his
service.
4. In the instant case, the petitioner is an employee of
KSRTC, and if the petitioner is not granted probation, it may result
AIR 1985 SC 1278
NC: 2024:KHC:9308
in imposing penalty against the petitioner and affect his service
conditions and also service benefits. The petitioner has retired from
service and if any punishment is imposed on the petitioner, that
would probably affect the petitioner and his family members. It is
made clear that the judgment of conviction of the petitioner shall
not affect his service.
5. To this extent, the revision petition is allowed,
affirming the order of conviction and confirming the benefit of
probation. It is ordered that the conviction of the petitioner shall not
affect the service rendered by the petitioner nor disbursement of
service benefits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DH
