Criminal Revision No. 2269 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2269 of 2007 Date of Decision: 7.12.2011 Krishan Dayal Sharma ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Sushil Kumar and his sons Raman Kumar and Aman Kumar were nominated as accused in case FIR No. 275 dated 15.9.1996, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, under Sections 323, 452 read with Section 34 and 506 IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, vide its impugned judgment dated 12.3.2007, held Sushil Kumar and Aman Kumar guilty of offence under Sections 452 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide a separate order dated 13.3.2007, Sushil Kumar was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500, for the offence under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment Criminal Revision No. 2269 of 2007 2 for a period of three months for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, third accused namely Raman Kumar had died during the pendency of trial. Aman Kumar was a juvenile, therefore, on the quantum of sentence, his case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambala. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, Sushil Kumar has filed an appeal. The Appellate Court had upheld conviction of Sushil Kumar, however, he was released on probation for one year holding that he was a first offender and no reason was spelt out by the trial Court not to grant probation to the accused/respondent No.2. The impugned judgment dated 13.7.2007, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala, has been made a subject matter of challenge in this revision petition against the release of accused Sushil Kumar on probation. A perusal whereof shows that when Sushil Kumar, accused, was released on probation, he was 65 years of age. In the present case, occurrence pertains to 1996 and a period of about 15 years is going to elapse. Furthermore, the accused has already completed the period of probation without any complaint. The discretion has been validly exercised by the Appellate Court. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 7, 2011 “DK”