IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1822 of 2004 Date of decision: October 06, 2010 Banwari Lal @ Balraj Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 3.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Tract Court, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 2.2.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 498-A IPC. However, accused Sanjiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar were extended benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, by the Appellate Court. At the very out set, without challenging the conviction of the accused, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment and the records of the case, the parties were married on 13.12.1996. The marriage went to a rough weather and ultimately the present case was got registered in the year 1998. It has been brought to my notice that out of five accused, two accused namely Sanjiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar have already been released on probation by the Appellate Court. Satya Devi and Shyam Lal are too old to move. Shyam Lal is lying admitted in the hospital and is in a serious condition. It has also been brought to my notice that Banwari Lal accused has already obtained decree of divorce ex-parte against Jaswinder Kaur and the said decree has not been challenged. Both the parties are living Criminal Revision No. 1822 of 2004 -2- happily in their respective houses. They have children out of their second marriages. The accused have already undergone two months and 25 days of the substantive sentence. As such, it would be in the fitness of things if some leniency is extended to them on the quantum of sentence. 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.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, the fine is converted into costs of litigation. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for compliance. October 06, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge