IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2172 of 2003 Date of decision: September 15, 2010 Kanshi Ram .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vikas Awasthi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 15.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Kanshi Ram (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 11.1.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under Section 332 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under Section 353 IPC. On 25.5.1996, at about 11.00 a.m. the complainant Brahm Kumar (herein referred as, 'the complainant'), on receipt of the complaint, had gone to repair the clamp of transformer installed in village Sanghore. After changing the said clamp, he had gone to the tube well of Bhagwati for testing electric supply which was found in order. In the meanwhile, the complainant also tested the electric meter of the accused which was found without one lead and was having direct supply of electricity. When the complainant was noting the particulars of the meter, the accused gave him push and inflicted one danda blow on his head; another danda blow on his right hand; and third blow on the left side of his face. Consequently, the complainant picked up his cycle and fled away in order to save himself. Thereafter, he went to the hospital for medical treatment. A rqua was sent by the Medical Officer, In-charge Primary Health Centre,Babian. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and Criminal Revision No.2172 of 2003 -2- investigated. On completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. The accused was charged under Sections 332/353 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution led evidence, thereafter statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by the accused also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Having examined the impugned judgment, it may be observed that Manglu Ram (PW2) has supported the prosecution version on all material points. He has deposed that he was posted as foreman in the Electricity Department since 25.5.1996. A complaint centre is situated in village Sanghore where Dalel Singh was on duty as Assistant Line Man. On 25.5.1996, Dalel Singh was on rest and in his place the complainant was deputed to work as Assistant Line Man. On receipt of the complaint regarding the transformer of Singh Ram, the complainant had gone there to attend the complaint. At that time, electric power was off. He went to the tube-well of the accused for testing the electric power where the accused quarrelled with him and gave him beatings. His testimony stands corroborated by the complainant in all material particulars and he has categorically stated that the accused quarrelled with him and obstructed in his duties. Dr. Bawa Singh (PW3) has stated that as per MLR, the complainant had suffered three injuries. Thus, it would have to be observed that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused. Faced with the situation, Mr. Vikas Awasthi, learned counsel has urged that the accused has already undergone one month and two days of the substantive sentence; he was 53 years old at the time of the incident i.e. on 25.5.1996 and now he is 77 years old and is completely reformed man. He appears to be first offender and no such offence has been committed by him during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore, he could be extended the benefit of probation. The aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are accepted. Resultantly, while dismissing the revision petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his Criminal Revision No.2172 of 2003 -3- executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine is converted into costs of litigation and he is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- more towards costs of litigation within three months from today. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, for compliance. September 15, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge