SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2000. D/d. 4.9.2000

Arun Ahluwalia - Appellant

Versus

State (through Govt. of NCT, Delhi) - Respondent

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 374 and 360 - Appellant convicted under Sections 279/304A of Indian Penal Code - Released on probation - Appeal against conviction - Appeal held not maintainable - Revision against order of appellant authority - Revision dismissed in limine - Supreme Court held that appellate authority erred in holding the appeal not maintainable - Order of appellate authority and revisional order set aside - Court directed to entertain the appeal of appellant.

[Paras 1 and 2]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - Leave granted.

2. The appellant stood convicted under Sections 279/304A Indian Penal Code for having driven the Maruti Gypsy negligently, but he was released on probation by the learned Magistrate with the direction that he will pay some compensation to the heirs of the victim. Against the said conviction, he preferred an appeal. The learned appellate court was of the view that the appeal itself was not maintainable. Against that order of the Appellate Authority, he referred a revision which was dismissed in limine.

3. Mr Ranjit Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Appellate Authority committed serious error by holding that the appeal itself is not maintainable merely because the Magistrate had released the accused on probation. Having heard Mr Ranjit Kumar and the learned Attorney-General for the respondent, we have no manner of doubt that the Appellate Judge committed serious error in holding the appeal to be not maintainable. We, therefore, set aside the revisional order as well as the appellate order and direct that the appeal of the accused be entertained and disposed of on merits.

4. This criminal appeal stands disposed of accordingly.