Crl.Rev No.1606 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev No.1606 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.09.2011 Ram Avtar ...Petitioner Vs. Kuldeep alias Kalu & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. --- Present: Mr.Tapan Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Trial court vide judgment dated 23/24.10.2008 had convicted all the six respondents under sections 148, 323, 324/325, 341 and 506 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. However, first appellate court vide its judgment dated 22.1.2010 ordered the respondents to be released on probation on Crl.Rev No.1606 of 2010 2 their executing bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of three years. Fine of Rs.3000/- awarded by the learned trial court was converted into costs of litigation. In addition to it, the respondents were further ordered to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- each as compensation i.e. Rs.42,000/- in total for the injuries caused to the complainant Ram Avtar, Dhanpat, Satbir and Chander Pal (all injured). The counsel for the complainant/petitioner has urged that since the respondents are previous offenders, therefore, the benefit of probation could not be extended to them. The respondents have already undergone huge trauma on account of pendency of trial since 2005, injuries attributed to them are simple in nature, except grievous injuries which are only on the non-vital parts of their bodies; the respondents are bread-winners of the family having wife and children. Having considered the contentions, it transpires that actually two incidents had taken place on the same day in which they had caused injuries and two FIRs simultaneously were registered for which they were tried, convicted and sentenced. No other case is shown to have been pending or decided against them. Therefore, judicial discretion exercised by the first appellate court cannot be interfered with at this revisional stage. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 01.09.2011 Judge rp