IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision Petition No.2530 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.12.2009 Satish Kumar. ....... Petitioner Shri Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana. ....... Respondent through Shri P.M.Anand, Additional Advocate General. Complainant through Shri Anand Bishnoi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against judgment dated 10.9.2009 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') vide which his appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.2.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') has been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that F.IR.No.180 dated 28.11.2004 was registered against the petitioner under Section 354 and 506 Crl.Revision Petition No.2530 of 2009 -2- .... of the I.P.C. at Police Station, Pinjore on the basis of a complaint made by one Rajni Sood and sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The complainant had alleged that she was working as Art Teacher in Govt.Middle School, Jabrot where the petitioner was also working as Science Teacher and was Incharge of the school. It was further alleged that the petitioner had tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant. On 2.11.2004, the petitioner was said to have called the complainant in his office and compelled her to go along with him in a hotel or Pinjore Garden for having sexual intercourse to which she objected to and thereupon he threatened her with dire consequences. The matter was reported to the District Education Officer, Panchkula, but no action was taken. After completion of necessary investigation, the petitioner was sent up for trial and he was charged accordingly. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner pleaded false implication and set up a defence that he had tried to check the daily work done by the complainant and aggrieved by the same, she got attacked and kidnapped him with the help of her brothers-in-law Sandeep Sud & Umesh Sud and other persons, for which F.I.R.No.171 dated 11.11.2004 was registered against the said persons in Police station,m Pinjore. He also stated that the instant F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant as a counter-blast to the above said F.I.R. Crl.Revision Petition No.2530 of 2009 -3- .... In his defence, the petitioner had examined as many as six witnesses. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 354 and 506 of the I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C, whereas he was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court resulting in the filing of the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned judgment, has confined his arguments only to the aspect of the grant of probation to the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner has undergone more than three months out of the total sentence awarded to him and, therefore, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, he deserves to be granted the benefit of probation. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill Vesus State (Admn., U.T.,Chandigarh) Thro' Secy., & Anr., 2005(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 772 (S.C.) and Smt.Ram Dai Versus Subha Chand, 1991(1) R.C.R. 320 (P&H) and Hamir Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2009(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 64 (P&H). On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the Crl.Revision Petition No.2530 of 2009 -4- .... complainant have contended that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency considering the immoral conduct as being incharge of the school, he was expected to have acted in a more responsible manner, but instead he chose to exploit an employee for his immoral activities. They, thus, pleaded that the revision petition be dismissed. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have perused the impugned judgment. There is, indeed, no doubt that the petitioner deserves hardly any leniency considering the fact that he had made amorous advances towards the complainant. However, keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court in Kanwar Pal Singh Gill's case (supra) and those of this Court in Hamir Singh's case (supra), and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already undergone three months' imprisonment out of the total substantive sentence of six months awarded to him and also the fact that the incident is about five years old and he is an educated person, who can easily be weaned away from the life of a violator of law and reclaimed back in the society, I deem it proper to direct that the benefit of probation should be granted to him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,1956(for short, `the Act'). Accordingly, while maintaining his conviction as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellant Court, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act on his furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount, binding himself for a period of two years to appear and serve the remaining sentence Crl.Revision Petition No.2530 of 2009 -5- .... as and when called upon, to do so, during the said period and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. This direction shall come into force subject to the condition that he deposits a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the trial Court within a period of two months from today. The aforesaid amount, if deposited, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation after due verification. The petitioner shall execute the above bonds before the trial Court. The amount of fine as imposed upon the petitioner by the Courts below shall be treated as costs of proceedings. With the above modification in the impugned judgment,the revision petition is disposed of. All the pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of in view of the above. December 10,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge