IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.R.No.9 of 2004. Date of decision: 18.12.2010. Nihalu Ram … …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.Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has been sentenced by the learned trial Court which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offences under Section 420/120-B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1500/- for offences under Section 468/120-B IPC and simple imprisonment for one year for offences under Section 471/120-B IPC. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has connived with the other accused in this case for acquiring false/fictitious loan for purchase of mules/sheep. The petitioner is accused of forging receipt for the purchase of mules/sheep. The findings of the learned trial Court have been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a number of submissions in support of his contentions that the petitioner is not guilty as Ex.PW- 1/G and Ex.PW-19/20 have not been signed by him and Ex.PW-19/20 did not contain the correct writing of the petitioner. I am unable to accept this finding of fact on the conclusion arrived at by the learned Court below. 4. On the question of sentencing, what I find is that the petitioner is aged about 85 years. Probation Officer certifies that he is living in a miserable/poor condition. At this stage, it would not be in the interest of justice that sentence of incarceration is imposed upon the petitioner. Report of the Probation Officer has been placed on the record by the learned Additional Advocate General. 5. In these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things that the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is granted to the petitioner. It is accordingly directed that: 3 (a) the petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath on or before 30th April, 2011, undertaking that he shall keep good behaviour for a period of one year and shall not indulge in any anti-social/criminal/illegal activities. (b) During this period, the petitioner shall be supervised by the Probation Officer, who shall interact with the petitioner. (c) the petitioner shall undertake that in case of breach of any of the conditions and in case he is involved in any anti- social/illegal activities, his bond shall be forfeited and that he shall be liable to undergo the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court and as affirmed by the learned appellate Court. He shall also undertake that he shall receive any sentence in case of any violation of bonds so executed by him. The petition is accordingly disposed of. December 18, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.