IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1947 of 2009 Date of decision : August 27, 2009 Sahi Ram ....Petitioner versus Pritam Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Sahi Ram has filed this revision petition assailing judgment dated 11.4.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby respondent nos. 1 to 7 have been ordered to be released on probation of good conduct and also ordered to pay compensation to the injured person including the petitioner-complainant, while upholding the conviction of the respondents. Respondent nos. 1 to 7 along with Shakuntala and Kaushalya were convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Palwal vide judgment dated 19.9.2008 under sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 506 IPC read with section 149 IPC and vide order dated 22.9.2008 Shakuntala and Kaushalya were ordered to be released on probation whereas respondent nos. 1 to 7 were awarded substantive sentence. Respondent nos. 1 to 7 preferred appeal wherein they did not challenge their conviction but prayed for release on probation as noticed in paragraph no. 9 of the impugned judgment of the appellate court. The learned appellate court accepted the Criminal Revision No. 1947 of 2009 -2- said prayer of respondent nos. 1 to 7 and ordered their release on probation of good conduct and also directed them to pay Rs 3500/- each as compensation including the fine amount of Rs 1500/- each which was also converted into compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has preferred this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate court has not recorded any reason for releasing respondent nos. 1 to 7 on probation. The contention cannot be accepted because in paragraph no. 13 of the impugned judgment as well as in preceding paragraphs, reasons have been recorded for ordering release of respondent nos. 1 to 7 on probation. In addition thereto, in view of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as well as sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. , special reasons have to be recorded for denying the benefit of probation in such cases. Respondent nos. 1 to 7 are not previous convicts. The offences were not punishable with imprisonment for life. There was no special reason to deny the benefit of probation to respondent nos. 1 to 7. There is, thus, no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned judgment of the appellate court granting benefit of probation to respondent nos. 1 to 7. In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 27, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'