CRM No.503-MA of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.503-MA of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 6.9.2012 Tek Chand .....Petitioner Versus Nityanand & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.5. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral) Concisely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition, for special leave to appeal u/s 378 (4) Cr.PC and emanating from the record, are that, a criminal case was registered against the private respondents-accused, vide FIR No.44 dated 2.3.1999, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Rewari. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court convicted and sentenced convict Mahadev to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the commission of offence punishable u/s 325 IPC, whereas convicts Nityanand, Dayanand and Ami Chand were convicted & sentenced to CRM No.503-MA of 2010 (O&M) -2- undergo RI for a period of six months each, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days u/s 325/34 IPC. All the convicts were further convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days u/s 323 IPC, by virtue of judgment of conviction dated 23.5.2007 and order of sentence dated 24.5.2007. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction & order of sentence, the respondents-convicts filed the appeal. Although the first appellate Court maintained the conviction of the private respondents- convicts, however, they were released on probation, by way of impugned judgment dated 3.2.2010. 4, The petitioner-complainant still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition for special leave to appeal, invoking the provisions of Section 378(4) Cr.PC. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner-complainant sustained injury on his eye damaging his eye sight in the occurrence, so, the private respondents-convicts were not entitled to the benefit of probation, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record, that the complainant claimed CRM No.503-MA of 2010 (O&M) -3- that convict Mahadev caused a blow with some object, which landed on his left eye. He has no where explained, during the course of investigation/trial, as to what was the object, particularly when the police did not recover any such object from respondent-convict Mahadev. Moreover, the 1st appellate Court has duly considered all these aspects of the matter, while granting the benefit of probation to the respondent- convicts, vide impugned judgment dated 3.2.2010, which, in substance, is as under (para 7):- “Undisputedly the occurrence had taken place on 2.3.1999 and pertaining to the occurrence a criminal appeal titled Dayanand Vs. Tek Chand etc. for commission of offence punishable under Section 323/149/427 IPC was also instituted which however was dismissed by learned trial Court. In other words the appellants have been facing agony of trial since more than 10 years. Appellants are not previous convicts. The appellants therefore are allowed the benefit of probation in view of law laid down in, Devdutt and others Vs. State of Haryana 2009(1) CCJ 696, Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2005(3) CCJ 32.” 8. Meaning thereby, the 1st appellate Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such impugned judgment, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 378(4) Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, so, the impugned judgment deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. CRM No.503-MA of 2010 (O&M) -4- 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for special leave to appeal is hereby dismissed as such. 6.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge