Criminal Revision No. 625 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 625 of 2005 Date of decision: March 11, 2010 Gurbachan Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 19.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Tract Court, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Gurbachan Singh and others (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 14.6.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 427/149 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 447 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Hari Kishan, Sarpanch of village Tillowal, in his complaint has alleged that Gram Panchayat Tillowal owns four kanals of the land which was given on lease to Charan Dass by the village Panchayat and Charan Dass had sown Maize crop over it. On the intervening night of 10/11.6.1995, the accused- petitioners and certain unknown persons illegally trespassed into the said land and destroyed the Maize crop standing over one kanal. They (the accused) had also took illegal possession of land and constructed a room there over. On being questioned by the Panchayat, the accused extended threats to them. On the basis of the aforesaid application and the Criminal Revision No. 625 of 2005 -2- endorsement made by he learned Sub Divisonal Magistrate, Dasuya, FIR No.71 was registered at Police Station Tanda. The accused were arrested; rough site plan was prepared; statements of the witnesses were recorded; and on completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. The accused were charged under Sections 427/447/149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Hari Kishan (PW1), Nand Lal (PW2), Harbans Singh (PW3), Ram Parkash (PW4), Surinder Kumar (PW5), Investigating Officer (PW6) and Ram Lal (PW7). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Their appeal was also dismissed. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, without assailing the impugned judgment of conviction, has confined his arguments only to the extent that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995. The accused has been facing agony of the protracted trial for the last 15 years. They have already undergone about one month and seven days of the substantive sentence, as such some leniency may be extended on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused persons. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is affirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995 and the sword of sentence remained hanging over their heads since then, and that they have already undergone about one month and seven days of the substantive sentence, therefore, I deem it a fit case where benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act could be extended to them. Criminal Revision No. 625 of 2005 -3- Resultantly, while dismissing the revision petition, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, they are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- each within three months which would be shared by the injured persons equally. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur for compliance. March 11, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge