CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2502 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 28, 2011 Balwinder Singh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. On account of some land dispute, a fight took place between the petitioners and the complainant on 14.11.2001 at about 5.30 P.M. While Hazara Singh, complainant, was sitting in a street opposite his house, Nasib Singh, Balwinder Singh and Jaswant Singh armed with Gandasi and Bahadur Singh armed with sword came together to the place. Jaswant Singh allegedly gave gandasi blow on the head of the complainant whereas Bahadur Singh gave a sword blow on him. When the complainant tried to ward the blow with his hand, the sword hit on his left hand. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2502 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: The complainant raised alarm, upon which his son, Kulwant Singh came there. The petitioners then left the place. For this, the petitioners were tried for various offences and stand convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months coupled with fine of `500/-. Jaswant Singh, who is no more, was sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years upon his conviction for an offence under Section 325 IPC with a fine of `3,000/-. Since Jaswant Singh is no more, the petitioners are undergoing the rigors of punishment of six months imposed on them. They have accordingly filed this revision petition to challenge their conviction and award of sentence. I have considered the plea raised to challenge the conviction but do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that the aspect of release of the petitioners on probation, upon their conviction for offence under Section 323 IPC was not rightly considered. As per Eliamma and another Vs. State of Karnatka, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 47 consideration for release of an accused on probation, upon his conviction, is now a mandatory requirement. If any Court wishes to deny the benefit of probation to any convict, it has to record reasons. No doubt, the courts considered the release of the petitioner on probation but did not give any CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2502 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: cogent reason as to why they did not deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioners. The Appellate Court simply brushed aside this aspect by observing that it did not view it appropriate to extend the benefit of probation. So was the view expressed by the Trial Court. This, in my view, would not be a sufficient reason not to consider the case of release of the petitioners on probation. Out of the sentence of six months imposed, the petitioners have already undergone about 1 month and 21 days sentence. It is a case of a fight over minor issue, which has led to the present conviction and sentence. There is no viable reason to deny the benefit of probation to the petitioners. The petitioners are not habitual offenders and are accused of some minor fight, which took place in this case. Accordingly case for release of the petitioners on probation is made out. The present revision is partly allowed. Order of conviction passed against the petitioners is maintained whereas the order of sentence is set-aside and the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months. Upon their release, the petitioners shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, on or before 20.12.2011 with an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2502 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: a period of six months and to appear and receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. In addition, the petitioners would be asked to furnish an undertaking before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, that they will not indulge in such activities in future. The amount of fine, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the petitioners and be treated as costs of the proceedings. November 28, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE