Criminal Revision No.2199 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2199 of 2003 Date of Decision : 4.2.2011 Kiran ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate for Mr. Jai Bhagwan Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Satyavir Yadav DAG Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Ram Niwas Lohan, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated July 14th, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby sentence of respondents No.2 to 6 was maintained under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code but they were released on probation for a period of one year. The only submission made by learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner is that accused-respondents No.2 to 6 should not have been released on probation rather they should have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court commented upon the law of probation in Jugal Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar 1972 AIR (SC) 2522 as under:- “The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the Criminal Revision No.2199 of 2003 2 conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. The above object is in consequence with the present trend in the field of penology, according to which effort should be made to bring about correction and reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to retributive justice. Modern criminal jurisprudence recognizes that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are the product of socio- economic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their association with hardened criminals. The Act gives statutory recognition to the above objective. It is, therefore, provided that youthful offenders should not be sent to jail, except in certain circumstances” In view of above legal position and taking into consideration the fact that the accused have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 14 years. Neither they are previous convicts nor have they indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case and are the only bread earners of their family, in considered opinion of this Court releasing of the accused on probation by the First Appellate Court was justified. Hence, the revision is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 4.2.2011 SN