IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 839 of 2004 Date of decision: September 30, 2010 Baldev Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ajit Attri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 2.4.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 25.2.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, convicting and sentencing all the accused except Balkar Singh as under : U/s 323 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months each. U/s 324 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. U/s 325 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. U/s 447/147 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months each on both counts. However, the accused Balkar Singh was granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by the trial court. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel has submitted that they are the first offenders, therefore, they could be extended a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Heard. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out Criminal Revision No. 839 of 2004 -2- *** warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the judgment of conviction could be made out at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1993 and the accused have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against them since then. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub them as habitual offenders. They are ready to compensate the injured. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Resultantly, while dismissing the 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 their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- 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, the fine is converted into costs of litigation. They are also burdened to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as compensation to the injured persons which would be shared by them equally. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat for compliance. September 30, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge