1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1975 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.1.2011 *** Ramesh Chand & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Saurav Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab with Mr. Simarjot Singh Dhillon, AAG Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners and one Ranjit Singh (since deceased) were tried by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib. They were held guilty under Section 379 IPC vide judgment dated 6.5.2008 and in pursuance of order of even date each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default whereof further simple imprisonment for two months was awarded. They preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar by virtue of judgment dated 15.4.2009 whereby their conviction was maintained, but they were granted the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and were released on probation on their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.15000/- each. Besides, they were directed to maintain peace and be of good behavior and to appear before the court as and when called upon to receive sentence during the period of probation. The fine was treated as cost of the prosecution. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 15.4.2009 the 2 petitioners have filed the instant criminal revision. It emerges out from the perusal of the impugned judgment that the counsel for the petitioners had not pressed the appeal on merit, so far as their conviction is concerned and consequently the prayer of the learned counsel for grant of benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. to the appellant was accepted and the petitioners were released on probation. Although, the petitioners, in the instant revision petition, have claimed that the arguments were addressed on merits by their counsel, but no affidavit of the counsel in support of it has been filed. That apart, it cannot be expected from an officer of the rank of Session Judge that he, of his own, had written that the appeal has not been addressed on merits. The same appears to be an after-thought. On merits also, this Court is not convinced with the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It cannot be said that the impugned judgment suffers from any illegality or perversity. The revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 3,2011 Jiten