IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2032 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2010. Krishan Kumar and another ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 16.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2009 and order of sentence dated 23.09.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narnaul vide which the present revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2000/- each for offence under Section 325 IPC besides other sentences, was modified and CRR No.2032 of 2010 the petitioners-accused were convicted for offence under Sections 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years alongwith fine of Rs.2000/-. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the judgment of conviction passed by both the courts below. However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the revision-petitioners that they have been facing agony of trial for the last 9 years and that the present petitioners are not previous convicts. Moreover, it is a case of version and cross version and that they have already undergone more than one month of the sentence. It is further contended that moreover, parties have also entered into compromise as both the parties belong to same family and are near relatives. Hence, it is argued that they should be given benefit of probation. All these facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. The prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant. The present revision petitioners are not previous convicts. They have been facing agony of trial for the last about 9 years. Dispute has since been compromised between the parties. Hence, there is nothing as to why they should be denied the benefit of probation. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is partly accepted and while maintaining judgment of conviction, the orders of sentence passed by the courts below are set aside. Instead of sentencing the petitioners-accused to imprisonment, it is, hereby, ordered that they be released on probation for a period of one year subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount 2 CRR No.2032 of 2010 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul undertaking to maintain peace and be of good behaviour during the said period and be called upon to receive sentence in case of breach of any condition of the bond. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 17, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3