IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2003 Date of Decision: 17th June, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Padmu and another. ….Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Ms. Bindiya Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge directing that the petitioners herein be sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court. Both the Courts below concurrently held the petitioners guilty of offences under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned trial court on consideration of material before him directed the petitioners to be released on probation. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2 2. The jurisdiction exercised by the learned Trial Magistrate is contrary to Section 4 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, as no report of Probation Officer was called for. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while upholding the findings of guilt has directed the petitioners to be sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court. 2. At this stage, without going into the legality of the sentence imposed, I do not consider it a fit case where the petitioners should be sentenced to imprisonment. The order passed by the learned trial court shall be complied with. For this purpose, a direction is issued that the learned trial court shall call for the report of Probation Officer and in case it is found that the case of the petitioners is not recommended for probation, the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall be executed forthwith. Petition disposed of. June 17, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (KRS) Judge