IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.210 of 1991 Date of Decision : March 16, 2010 Dhanpat and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioners were tried on a private criminal complaint for offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC on the allegations that on 27.9.1987 at about 9.00 A.M., all of them outraged the modesty of the complainant, who was a student of seventh class. Vide judgment and order dated 31.5.1989, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Garhshankar convicted the petitioners for the aforementioned offences and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each. In the event of non-payment of the fine, the defaulting petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed an appeal. Vide judgment dated 18.3.1991, learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur upheld the conviction of the Criminal Revision No.210 of 1991 -2- petitioners as well as the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed upon Dhanpat and Hardial-petitioners. However, in the case of Bhagwant Rai-petitioner, he was granted the benefit of probation by setting aside the sentence imposed upon him and he was ordered to be released on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa Magistrate, to appear before that Court and receive sentence when called upon within a period of one year and, in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Still not satisfied, the petitioners filed the present revision which was admitted on 22.3.1991 and the sentences imposed upon Dhanpat and Hardial petitioners were suspended and they were granted the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below whereby they were convicted for the offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC. However, he submits that at the time of the trial, Dhanpat petitioner was 70 years of age whereas Hardial petitioner was of 48 years. The occurrence in question had taken place about 23 years ago. There was no material brought on the record by the prosecution that either Dhanpat or Hardial were previous offenders. Therefore, sentences of Dhanpat and Hardial petitioners be also set aside by extending the benefit of probation to them as has been done in the case of Bhagwant Rai petitioner by the learned lower appellate Court. Criminal Revision No.210 of 1991 -3- Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that Dhanpat and Hardial petitioners had outraged the modesty of a young girl. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the aforementioned circumstances, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sustaining the sentences imposed upon Dhanpat and Hardial petitioners. Instead, they can also be extended the benefit of probation as was done by the learned lower appellate Court in the case of Bhagwant Rai petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. The sentences imposed upon Dhanpat and Hardial petitioners are set aside and it is directed that they be released on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one security in the like amount within three months from today to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa Magistrate, to appear before that Court and receive sentence when called upon to do so within two years, and, in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour, failing which the sentence imposed upon them by the learned Courts below shall stand. During the period of probation, both Dhanpat and Hardial petitioners shall remain under the supervision of the District Probation Officer. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. Criminal Revision No.210 of 1991 -4- ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 16, 2010 JUDGE satish