Criminal Revision No. 743 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 743 of 2005. Date of Decision: 25.1.2011. Joginder Pal & another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Vikram Choudhari, Advocate, for petitioner No.1. Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for petitioner No.2. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated April 4th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 9th, 2002 of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur was upheld and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 323 IPC RI for 3 months -- 324 IPC RI 6 months -- Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:- On October 1994, an occurrence took place in village Chhokran Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar on account of election of Block Samiti, Phillaur in which Surinder Kumar got injuries at the hands of the petitioners and their co-accused Gian Chand, Husna, Hussan Lal. Gian Chand and Hussan Lal were acquitted by the trial Court. Husna was declared proclaimed offender and the Criminal Revision No. 743 of 2005 2 petitioners were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners have stated that they do not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits but only prays for release of petitioners on probation. As per jail custody certificates, petitioners have undergone actual sentence of 1 month and 27 days. 4. Learned counsel representing Joginder Pal- petitioner has urged that the petitioner was an Officer of Class I, in the Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab and retired on March 31st, 2009. Before registration of the present case and thereafter, the petitioner was never involved in any criminal case. He served his Department for 29 years and during that period also, there had never been any complaint of any sort against him. It was also urged that petitioner being retired Government employee, if his conviction and sentence are maintained, he would lose his retiral benefits. 5. So far as Kirpal Singh-petitioner is concerned, submission of counsel is that he is the only bread earner of his family and he has never been held guilty and convicted in any case registered against him. 6. In view of this, this Court is of opinion that it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to release the petitioners on probation. Support to this view can be had from the authority Rajbir vs. State of Haryana 1985 AIR (SC) 1278 in which accused was a Government employee and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC but was released on probation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court primarily on the ground that he was in Government service and if the conviction and sentence are maintained, he would lose his service. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners is upheld but it is ordered that instead of being sentenced to any punishment each of them be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act provided that they enter into bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each for a period of one year to the satisfaction of Chief Criminal Revision No. 743 of 2005 3 Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. They shall receive the sentence if and when called by the Court during the said period and shall maintain the peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime. 8. The revision is disposed of accordingly. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 25.1.2011 SN