Crl.Rev. No.1809 of 2001 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1809 of 2001 Date of Decision: 26 - 2 - 2009 Mangal Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.J.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common judgment Criminal Revision Nos.1809 of 2001 filed by Mangal Singh and 428 of 2002 preferred by Banta Singh and Kulwant Singh shall be decided together. Present three petitioners along with Baljit Singh, Dalip Singh and Kaka Singh were tried in case FIR No.108 dated 8.10.1998 registered at Police Station Boha under Sections 323, 325, 148, 149 IPC. It is stated that co-accused Baljit Singh and Kaka Singh were acquitted by the trial Court. Dalip Singh was convicted and sentenced and he had filed an appeal and the Appellate Court released Dalip Singh on probation. It is also stated that occurrence in the present case had taken Crl.Rev. No.1809 of 2001 [2] place on 1.10.1998 at 7.30 A.M. when dog of Dalip Singh tried to bite the complainant and he in order to ward off the dog had given a sota blow to the dog. Due to this an occurrence had ensued and injuries were given to the complainant party. Counsel for the petitioners at the out set has stated that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction and will be unable to controvert the findings of fact returned by two Courts below. He has stated that in the present case, petitioners were convicted for offence under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial Court had awarded maximum sentence of one year under Section 325 IPC and the sentence so awarded was maintained by the Appellate Court. Counsel for the petitioners has prayed that in the present case 11 years are going to elapse, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars. An opportunity be granted to accused- petitioners to reform themselves. Counsel has stated that petitioners are not criminals and in the last 11 years, they had committed no offence and are leading the life of a peaceful citizen. Counsel has further stated that petitioners have large families to support. I find merit in the contention raised by counsel for the petitioners. This Court cannot lose light of the fact that occurrence has ensued on spur of the moment when on a trivial reason that dog of Dalip Singh was given a sota blow to ward off the bite, injuries by blunt weapon were caused. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 771 wherein Court considering the protracted trial of 10 years, released the accused on probation for a Crl.Rev. No.1809 of 2001 [3] period of one year subject to their furnishing bonds for good behaviour. Counsel further relied upon Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 109; Maya Ram and others v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 596 and Raja Ram and others v. State of Punjab, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 768 to urge that taking the protracted trial into consideration, the accused were released on probation. I find no reason to differ with the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the fine awarded upon the petitioners is converted as costs of proceedings under Section5(1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Petitioners are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- each as compensation under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act. The said amount shall be deposited before the trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and the same in turn would be disbursed to two injured persons in equal shares. The accused- petitioners are directed to execute the bonds with one surety each to the extent of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year and for that period they shall continue to be on probation for good conduct and maintain peace during the period of probation. It is, however, made clear that the bond to be furnished by the petitioners shall be of without any supervision. Needless to say that probation granted under the Probation of Offenders Act in view of Section 12 of the Act will fasten the petitioners with no disqualification. With the modification in sentence as indicated above, the present revision petitions stand disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 26, 2009. JUDGE RC Crl.Rev. No.1809 of 2001 [4]