IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2003 Date of Decision: 7th April, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Om Parkash and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The State has filed the instant appeal on a limited ground. In terms of the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2002, the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. in Cri. Case No.113- II/99, titled as State vs. Om Parkash and another, has convicted the accused persons for having committed an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC. The accused persons have been acquitted for having committed an offence under Section 341,506 read with Section 34, IPC. The State is aggrieved only on the quantum of sentence imposed by the Court below. The accused Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 persons were sentenced for imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also pay fine of Rs.200/- each. Undisputedly, the altercation followed by scuffle took place between the two parties i.e. the complainant and the accused persons. The Court below has held that Smt. Usha Rani (accused No.2) on the asking of her husband Om Parkash, (accused No.1) gave a blow with a Danda on the right arm of Smt. Sarsawati Devi, as a result of which she received grievous injury. There was a fracture of a minor bone. Undisputedly the parties are immediate neighbours. The crime took place on 13.8.1998 over a trivial issue of use of path. The accused persons are not habitual offenders and except for this solitary incident they have been never involved in any crime. The Court below was inclined to give benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, but, however, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the said benefit could not be afforded to them. The Court below, after applying its mind and due deliberation has exercised its power of granting sentence in a judicious manner. The discretion is exercised in public interest to advance the cause of justice. 3 The alleged offence was committed in the year 1998. While taking this view, I am supported by the decisions of Lahore High Court in Altaf Hussain Shah and another vs. Emperior, AIR 1933 Lahore 311(1) and Emperor vs. Ghani Shah and others, AIR 1937 Lahore 131. Hence at this point of time, I see no reason to interfere in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 7th April, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.