1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT BHERURAM VS. BHAGWAN SAHAI AND ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 245 of 1999 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated December 15, 1998 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur District Jaipur whereby the accused respondents were acquitted for the offence under sections 325/149 IPC but convicted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447 and 323 IPC, but they have been released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for one year. Date of Order : April 9, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Biri Singh and Mr. Mukesh Saini for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Yadav, for the accused respondents. Mr.Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Bheruram, against the order dated December 15, 1998 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur District Jaipur whereby the accused respondents were acquitted for the offence under section 325/149 IPC but convicted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447 and 323 IPC, but they have been released under section 4 of the 2 Probation of Offenders Act for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for one year. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on March 9,1993 complainant Bheruram lodged a report against the accused respondents, which is registered as FIR No.80 of 1993 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 379, 308 and 323 IPC. After investigation the police filed challan on July 24, 1993 before the Judicial Magistrate Chomu for the aforesaid offences. The same was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Jaipur District Jaipur. Thereafter the matter was sent back under section 228 Cr.P.C. to the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur District Jaipur for trial for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447, 323 and 325 IPC. The trial court framed the charge for the aforesaid offences and read over the charge to the accused and the accused claimed to be tried. The prosecution 3 examined four witnesses and accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations levelled against them. After hearing both the sides, the trial court passed the order order dated December 15, 1998 whereby the accused respondents were acquitted of the offence under section 325/149 IPC and convicted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447 and 323 IPC, but they have been released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for one year. Against this order, the present revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court rightly convicted the accused respondents for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447 and 323 IPC, but has not passed the order of sentence and released the accused respondents under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for keeping peace and be of good behaviour 4 for one year, and further wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under section 325/149 IPC. The learned counsel argued that the trial court has not awarded compensation to the petitioner for the injuries received by them. The learned counsel argued that the order passed by the trial court should be modified for the purpose of sentence. 4. On the other hand Mr. Ravi Yadav, learned counsel for the accused respondents and Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor, opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that there was a cross case in which the accused petitioner and party were acquitted. Nothing remains more in this matter. The matter is of 17 years old from today and the accused respondents have already complied with the probation period and no complaint was received against them during the period they remained on probation. 5 5. For these reasons I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same stands dismissed as there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/