IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT MAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 452 OF 2007 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated April 21, 2007 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City in Sessions Case No.80 of 2005 whereby the accused respondents were convicted under sections 323 and 504 IPC, but were granted the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Date of Order : February 2, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. V.P.Bishnoi, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Acharya, for the non-petitioners. Mr. Hari Bareth, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by Mal Singh complainant petitioner against the order dated April 21, 2007 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2005 whereby the accused respondents were convicted under sections 323 and 504 IPC, but were granted the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner Mal Singh lodged a written report at Police Station, Sanjay Circle, Jaipur on May 1, 2003. In this report it was alleged that Nizam, Shakeel, Zameel, Vakil and some other persons entered into his house and belaboured and injured some members of the complainant party. The police registered the FIR and started investigation. After completion of investigation the police filed challan. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and later on it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.2 Jaipur City. The trial court framed charges for offences under sections 452, 323, 323/149, 149, and 504 IPC. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited documents. The accused respondents in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and produced 9 documents in their defence. After hearing both the sides the trial court vide judgment dated April 21, 2007 convicted the accused respondents for the offences under sections 323 and 504 IPC, but granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and they have been directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months and were directed to submit personal bond in the amount of Rs. 2,000 each. Against this order of Addl. Sessions Judge, the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Mr. V.P.Bishnoi, learned counsel for the complainant petitioner contended that the accused respondents have been convicted by the trial court and entire facts and circumstances have been narrated, hence the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, extended by the trial court is bad in eye of law and just contrary to the findings given by it. The learned counsel argued that the injured witnesses received injuries during the scuffle and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the accused are not entitled to get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents Mr. Manish Acharya and Mr.Hari Bareth, Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. There is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court extending the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondents. Thus the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. I have gone through the order passed by the trial court and in my opinion the order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 5. For these reasons I dismiss the revision petition being devoid of merit. As the main petition has been dismissed the stay application also stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/