Crl. Revision. No. 2435 of 2009 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 2435 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.7.2011. Sunder Singh .......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G. Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 7. ..... SABINA, J. Accused Mani Ram and others were sent up for trial under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) by the police of Police Station City Hansi. Vide judgment dated 14.12.2007, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide order dated 17.12.2007 the convicts Mani Ram, Jaipal, Raghbir, Ishwar and Satbir were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of ` 100/- each for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and fine of ` 200/- each for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of ` 300/- Crl. Revision. No. 2435 of 2009 (O&M) -2 - each for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC. Fine was deposited by the accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred an appeal. Before the appellate court, the accused did not challenge their conviction but prayed that they be released on probation. The said request of the petitioners was accepted by the appellate court and the accused were ordered to be released on probation. Hence, the present petition by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the appellate court had erred in releasing the accused- respondents No. 2 to 7 on probation. The offence committed by the accused was serious in nature. The sentence passed by the trial court was liable to be maintained. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents No. 2 to 7, on the other hand, has submitted that the accused had faced the criminal proceedings for 11 years and were not previous convicts. The accused were the only bread-earners of their families. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The accused had not challenged their conviction before the appellate court under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The incident had occurred in June 1998 and the trial was decided in December 2007. After one year, the appeal filed by the accused, was decided. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the accused are previous convicts. In these circumstances, the jurisdiction vested in the trial court has been duly exercised by the said court. The impugned judgment Crl. Revision. No. 2435 of 2009 (O&M) -3 - passed by the appellate court, thus, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. The application for condonation of delay is merely academic and is disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE July 21, 2011 Gurpreet