Criminal Revision No. 389 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 389 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.2.2011 Sarwan Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Issue notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, as per Identity Card (Annexure P1), was aged about 73 years on 8.9.2003 and as on today, he is more than 81 years old. She has drawn my attention to the judgment of the trial Court dated 6.2.2009, wherein brief facts have been narrated. It is stated therein that on 4.10.2004 at about 6.30 P.M., the petitioner was stated to be armed with a danda and gave a dang blow on the finger of the right hand of Rohi Ram and thereafter he gave another dang blow in the middle of back bone. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court, vide its judgment dated Criminal Revision No. 389 of 2011 2 6.2.2009, for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 1,000, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days, on both the counts. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment dated 7.2.2011, acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 325 IPC, however, upheld his conviction for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The sentence awarded for the offence under Section 323 IPC was reduced from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of one month and seven days out of the sentence of six months awarded under Section 323 IPC. She has further submitted that the petitioner is facing trial since 2004. Learned counsel has further brought to my notice that the offence under Section 323 IPC is a non-cognizable offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any other offence before or after the present occurrence. Considering the age, nature of offence and antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that an opportunity ought to be granted to him to reform himself and adopt the path of rectitude. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner, for the offence under Section 323 IPC, as recorded by trial Court, is upheld. However, he is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct and be of good Criminal Revision No. 389 of 2011 3 behaviour for a period of six months, subject to his furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. The petitioner shall undertake to appear and receive the sentence before the Court as and when called upon to do so. However, the cost of litigation is assessed at ` 10,000. The petitioner shall deposit the bonds and the cost of litigation before the concerned Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the cost is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to him. The cost, so paid, shall be disbursed to the injured. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 15, 2011 “DK”