Crl. Revision No.737 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.737 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: November 2, 2011 Gurmeet Singh & another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have impugned their conviction for an offences under Sections 324 and 323 IPC, which has been upheld in appeal also. Upon conviction, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `100/-. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days. They were identically sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year coupled with fine of `100/- and in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 days under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. They were further directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for their conviction for an offence under Section 323 IPC Crl. Revision No.737 of 2003 -2- and have identical sentence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The case set up by the prosecution is that the complainant as well as the accused were present during the visit of BDO, Moga Block-I on 24.7.1996 at 4.00 PM. The accused-persons started quarreling with the complainant in the presence of the BDO, who left the spot after inspection. When the complainant was returning to his house on a scooter and had reached near the house of Mastan Singh, the present petitioners overtook him and stopped his scooter. Accused Ajit Singh had allegedly taken the complainant in his grip and accused Maghar Singh gave a lathi blow on the right side of his forehead, whereas Gurmeet Singh accused inflicted a kapa blow on his left hand. The complainant raised hue and cry, which attracted Darshan Singh and Kapoor Singh, who rescued him from the accused. The petitioners statedly ran away from the scene of occurrence with their weapons. The Police had conducted investigation and found the petitioners innocent. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a complaint before the Court leading to their summoning and ultimate conviction. Against this order, the petitioners had filed appeal, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed this revision petition, which was admitted on 2.5.2003. The petitioners were directed to be released on bail. I have heard counsel for the parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and perused the record. Apparently, there is no case made out on merits to interfere in the order of conviction as recorded by the trial Court and Crl. Revision No.737 of 2003 -3- upheld by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot. However, I find that neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court had considered the aspect of release of the petitioners on probation. The petitioners have been found guilty of offences under Sections 324/323 IPC and the Court was required to consider the aspect of their release on probation. The provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. enjoin upon the Court to consider the case of an accused person, who was convicted for an offence for their release on probation. In this regard, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eliamma Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 47, can be taken note of. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court has not considered the statutory requirement for release of the petitioners on probation. Nothing appears from the record or otherwise urged before me to show that there is any reason for which the release of the petitioners on probation cannot be considered and allowed. The statutory requirement for imposing minimum punishment even has not been held to be a bar to consider the prayer for release on probation. The incident is old one. The Police investigating the incident found the petitioners innocent. The petitioners have remained on bail for so many year. It may not now sound very appropriate to direct them to undergo the remaining part of the imprisonment. It will further retard their effort to reform themselves. Accordingly, a case for giving chance to the petitioners to reform themselves is made out. The petitioners are ready and willing to furnish undertaking that they will not indulge in such activities in future. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant the benefit of probation to the petitioners for which this Court has ample powers. The present Crl. Revision No.737 of 2003 -4- revision is partly allowed. Order of conviction passed against the petitioners is maintained whereas the order of sentence is set-aside and the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year. The petitioners shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned on or before 25.11.2011 with an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. In addition, the petitioners would be asked to furnish an undertaking before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned that they will not indulge in such activities in future. The amount of fine, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the petitioners and be treated as costs of the proceedings. November 2, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE