In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1633 of 2003 Date of decision: April 17, 2009 Charanjit Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl.A.G. Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition has been filed by a private party challenging the legality of the order dated 30.5.2003 whereby the appellate court had maintained the conviction of the respondents under Sections 323/325 IPC and ordered them to be released on probation. The trial court vide its judgment dated 10.2.2003 had convicted and sentenced all the accused-respondents to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. However, the appellate court while releasing them on probation observed as under :- “So far as the injuries on the person of other two persons namely Charanjit Singh and Gurpreet Kaur are concerned, the said injuries fall under Section 323 IPC and the said injured- persons can be compensated with compensation. Therefore, I affirm the order of conviction and allow the parties to compound the offence under Section 325 IPC. Taking into consideration the facts that Daljit Kaur injured had compounded the offence with the permission of the court and that the accused-appellants have faced a protracted trial since Crl. Revision No. 1633 of 2003 -2- *** 1997, I modify the order of sentence passed by the trial court under section 323 IPC and direct that the accused-appellants be released on probation for a period of one year under section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.2000/- each and to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during this period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour during this period. The accused-appellants are also directed to pay Rs.1500/- each as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the total compensation comes out Rs.12,000/- which shall be paid in equal share i.e. Rs.6000/- as compensation to each injured persons namely Gurpreet Kaur and Charanjit Singh ........” From perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires that the trial court has committed grave irregularity that though all the respondents were convicted under Sections 323/325 IPC, yet, he did not proceed to decide whether the petitioners could not be convicted under Section 325 with the aid of Section 149 IPC for the injuries suffered by Gurpreet Kaur and Charanjit Singh. In any case, Daljit Kaur who suffered grievous injuries had compounded the offence, yet, it was obligatory on the part of the court to make observations whether conviction of the respondents could be maintained under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC. I also agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while awarding benefit of probation, the court did not assign reasons if they were previous convicts or not as requirement of the respondents being first first offenders was sign qua for extending benefit of probation. The judgment also reveals that case was earlier fixed for 6.6.2003, but the court for the reasons best known to it preponed the case for 30.5.2003 without assigning any reasons and without prior notice to the State. This practice of pre-poning without notice to the State is deprecated. Had it been heard on the date fixed, the counsel for the complainant may have been there to assist the Public Prosecutor and defend the cause of the complainant. Crl. Revision No. 1633 of 2003 -3- *** Under these circumstances, the glaring illegalities from which the judgment is suffering, has impelled this court to interfere in the same. It is well settled by now that where illegality in the judgment, defect in the procedure and impropriety in the findings returned by the court has occurred then interference could be made in the same irrespective of the fact that the private party had come forward to challenge the same and not the State. Even Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. gives inherent powers to the Sessions Judge and High Court to examine the illegality of the judgment where the illegality is such which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Though Daljit Kaur had compromised the matter, yet, the court could decide about the conviction qua the other accused-respondents for the offence for which they had already been convicted. As such interference at my end has become inevitable. It is well settled by now that the revision petition by a private party is maintainable and reliance in this regard could be placed on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 555 wherein it was observed as under :- “16. So far as the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the accused is concerned, we find no substance therein. The case in hand was instituted on the basis of First Information Report. It was, thus, a Police case. De facto complainant, therefore, has no right to file an appeal. He, therefore, preferred a a revision. Now it is well settled that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular Court of Appeal.” As an upshot of the above said discussions, I hereby accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. April 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge