Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.07.2008 Geja Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No.175 dated 21.9.2000 registered under Sections 323/ 324/ 325/ 452 IPC at Police Station, Baghapurana, District Moga, on the allegations that he caused injuries to the complainant. Briefly, the facts are that FIR in question was recorded on the statement of Nachhattar Singh with the allegations that on 19.9.2000 at about 6.00 p.m. the petitioner under the influence of liquor entered his house and caused injuries with gandasa to him and Sarabjit Kaur. After considering the prosecution evidence on record, learned trial Court opined that the charges against the petitioner were proved and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo the following sentence :- U/s Sentence of R.I. Fine In default 452 IPC One year Rs.500 15 days 325 IPC One year Rs.500/- 15 days 324 IPC Eight months - - 323 IPC Six months - - In appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was upheld and even his request for granting him benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1959 (for short, “the Act”), was also declined. Though, initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of the Court below whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the aforesaid offences, however, finding it difficult in view of the statement of the Criminal Revision No. 542 of 2008 2 complainant-eye witness, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, he had faced the agony of trial before the Courts below for about eight years and further that he has four children to support and being the sole bread- earner of the family should be extended the benefit of probation under the Act. He further submitted that after he was taken into custody, on rejection of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has already undergone actual imprisonment of about six months. He has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 656; Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 597. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction of the petitioner. However, the factum of long trial, the petitioner being first offender, sole bread earner of family with four children to support are sufficient mitigating circumstances to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. Keeping in view my above observation, the present petition is disposed of by holding that the conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that instead of undergoing the imprisonment for the remainder sentence, the petitioner shall be released on probation on his executing bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga. The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called upon to do so. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 31.7.2008. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge.