CRR No.3301 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3301 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.01.2011 Sadhu Ram ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Since against the same judgment dated 9.12.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Court bearing CRR No.3329 of 2010 is pending disposal in which notice of motion has already been issued, hence present revision is being taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as of learned Assistant Advocate General Haryana, Ms. Preeti Chaudhary. Petitioner was found guilty for offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of CRR No.3301 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Rs.500/- under Section 148 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Sections 323/149 IPC and in default of payment of fine, petitioner was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Sections 326/149 IPC and in default of payment of fine, petitioner was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar. However, in appeal learned Sessions Judge has directed as under: - “Now coming to the question of sentence, it is observed that appellants are facing agony of trial since the year 1998 i.e. for the last 12 years. Appellant Dharma is stated to be of more than 70 years. The exaggerating circumstance is that injured Umed received fracture of his skull bone. As per his MLR he received two injuries on his head. In view of the fact that injured Umed had received fracture of his skull bone, the appellants are not entitled to benefit of probation of good conduct. However, in view of the protracted trial, some leniency is required to be observed in the matter of sentence. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellants under Section 148 IPC is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment each. The sentence of the appellants under section 323/149 IPC is also reduced from 6 months rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment each. The appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under section 325/149 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The sentence of fine for offence under section 148 IPC and 323/149 IPC and default sentence shall remain intact as awarded by learned trial court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing CRR No.3301 of 2010 (O&M) -3- this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Sections 148/149/323/326 IPC. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that revisionist should be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Sansar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Revision No.658 of 2002 decided on 10.3.2009. Ms. Preeti Chaudhari, AAG, Haryana, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. Applying the principles and ratio of the judgment in the matter of Sansar Singh (supra), conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, sentence awarded to him is set aside and he is ordered to be released on parole under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of six months, on his furnishing probation bonds and on undertaking with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court that he will keep peace and be of good behaviour. In case he is found to be indulged in such like activities, sentence awarded by the Court below shall stand revived automatically. However, fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court to be paid to the injured as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that in case probation bonds are not furnished and the enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to CRR No.3301 of 2010 (O&M) -4- have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge January 10, 2011 R.S.