IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 209 of 2003 Date of Decision 23rd February,2011 __________________________________________________________ Ram Swaroop ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The petitioner challenges his conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kandaghat as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, as he was convicted for offences under Sections 420, 471 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner was the Bank Manager of Punjab National Bank, Sabathu who had been an accused of entering into a conspiracy with other accused to defraud the State of Himachal Pradsh. I need not discuss the facts as the learned trial Court and the Appellate 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Court have considered the facts in detail. The finding of the learned Magistrate is that in the year 1984 the petitioner alongwith other accused entered into a conspiracy by preparing forged documents etc. and facilitated the withdrawal of government money for purchase of mules etc. Three points were formulated by the learned trial Court and on all three counts, barring three accused Shri Krishan Dutt, Simal Chand and Dhani Ram, it held the petitioner as also the other accused guilty of offences as charged. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging his conviction. A number of points have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that offences on record do not stand established. I have been taken through the evidence in detail. It is now well settled that in revisional jurisdiction, it is not open to this Court to re-assess the entire evidence. However, in order to satisfy my judicial conscience, I have gone through the entire evidence with the help of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General. I concur/agree with the judgments passed by the two Courts below and do not find that they suffer from any perversity or that the appreciation of evidence or conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are per se wrong, holding the petitioner to be guilty of offences as alleged. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 3. Report of the Probation Officer was called for and has been placed on record of the case. I have gone through the report. The petitioner is presently residing in 117-A, Gobind 3 Nagar, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana). The report details the family background and circumstances. The Probation Officer has reported favourably in favour of the petitioner and says that he deserves the benefit of probation as he has good social relations and a good character. He also certifies that there are no cases etc. pending against the petitioner. I also take note that the other accused who had preferred revision petition(s) against this judgment have also been released on probation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. For this purpose (a) the petitioner shall execute a bond in the sum of ` 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan; (b) the petitioner shall undertake that he will not indulge in any anti social or criminal activity and shall keep the peace; (c) the bond executed by the petitioner shall be valid for a period of 18 months. The petitioner shall also undertake that in case of breach of any of the conditions as contemplated in the bond and as enumerated hereinabove, the bond shall stand forfeitted and the petitioner will be liable to serve out the sentence as imposed upon him. 4. Since the petitioner is residing at Ambala, it will be in the fitness of things that he reports to the Chief Judicial Magistrate once every six months. The bond be executed within a period of six weeks from today. Petition stands disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. February 23rd, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4