CRR No.3098 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3098 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.12.2011 Amarjit Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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) Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being disposed at this admission stage. Petitioner was found guilty under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 30 days for the commission of offence under Section 406 IPC. She was further sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 30 days for the commission of offence under Section 420 IPC by JMIC, Rupnagar, vide judgment dated 30.10.2010. CRR No.3098 of 2011 (O&M) -2- In appeal preferred by the accused/petitioner, learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ropar, vide judgment dated 11.11.2011, affirmed the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court and appeal filed by the accused/petitioner herein was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the present revision on merit and requests that since petitioner was found guilty under Sections 406/420 IPC and maximum period of sentence awarded is one year, hence the petitioner may be released on probation. He further submits that present petitioner is suffering from various ailments and co-accused has already been released on probation by learned trial Court, therefore, case of the present revisionist be also treated at par with him. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, states that petitioner/accused is an old lady of 72 years of age and as such an appropriate order may be passed as this Court deems fit. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that she is suffering from various ailments, in the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals. Instead of keeping the accused/petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals, releasing her on probation with enhancement of fine seems to be best option to avoid tension and to maintain harmony between the parties. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, I direct that the accused/petitioner be released on probation on furnishing of probation bond and one surety bond to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for two years. Petitioner shall also furnish undertaking before the learned trial Court of CRR No.3098 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the effect that petitioner shall maintain good behaviour and shall not indulge in the wrongful activities during the period of probation. However,fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- 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. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, or petitioner is found involved in criminal activities during the period of probation, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge December 12, 2011 R.S.