RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.85 OF 2002 Smt. Punni …………Revisionist Versus State and four others ………….Respondents Dated : July 12, 2010 Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 5 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This criminal revision, preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.8.2002 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2001, State Vs. Sher Singh and others, whereby the respondents Sher Singh and Sharavan were convicted under Section 325/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and respondents Biram and Shukhbir were convicted u/s 325 of IPC. However, the respondents/accused were given benefit of the provision of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, the Act) and they were directed to release, subject to the condition, that each of them shall execute a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to this effect that they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in file. 3. The present revision has been preferred by the revisionist/complainant for the enhancement of sentence of the respondent nos.2 to 5. I have perused the judgment and order dated 7.8.2002 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Roorkee. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge heard the respondents/accused on the point of sentence and after considering the fact that the respondents were very poor persons and one of them was 60 years of age and it was the first crime of other accused, learned Assistant Sessions Judge given the benefit of the Act to the respondents/accused and they were directed to release with the condition that each of them shall execute a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to this effect that they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 has submitted that the impugned order dated 7.8.2002 has been complied with by the respondents/accused. In compliance of the impugned judgment and order dated 7.8.2002, each of the respondent has furnished personal bond of Rs.20,000/- before the trial court and has also completed the period of probation as directed by the court below. He further submitted that the said incident was taken place on 9.7.2000 and now ten years have been passed and now after ten years enhancing the sentence of the respondents/accused would not serve the ends of justice. 3 4. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that the order passed by the court below has been complied with by the respondents/accused and they have furnished personal bonds of Rs.20,000/- each and they have also completed the period of probation as directed by the court below and further that the respondents/accused were very poor persons and it was their first crime and now they are living with their families, who are entirely dependant upon them, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where the sentence awarded to the respondents/accused may be enhanced. 5. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and order dated 7.8.2002 and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the said order. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 7.8.2008 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.254 of 2001, State Vs. Sher Singh and others, needs no interference by this Court and is hereby made affirmed. 7. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.07.2010 RG