Criminal Revision No. 1311 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1311 of 2003 Date of Decision : 18.3.2011. Maksudan ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Sunil Panwal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 14. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for respondents No.15 to 20. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated April 5th, 2003 whereby, conviction of respondents No.2 to 22 was maintained under Sections 147, 323, 325, 365, 380 and 451 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code but they were released on probation for a period of two years. 2. The only submission made by learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner is that accused-respondents No.2 to 22 should not have been released on probation rather they should have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court commented upon the law of probation in Jugal Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar 1972 AIR (SC) 2522 as under:- “The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected Criminal Revision No. 1311 of 2003 2 therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. The above object is in consequence with the present trend in the field of penology, according to which effort should be made to bring about correction and reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to retributive justice. Modern criminal jurisprudence recognizes that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are the product of socio- economic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their association with hardened criminals. The Act gives statutory recognition to the above objective. It is, therefore, provided that youthful offenders should not be sent to jail, except in certain circumstances” 4. In view of above legal position and taking into consideration the fact that the accused have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 23 years and that neither they are previous convicts nor have they indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case and are the only bread earners of their respective families, in considered opinion of this Court releasing of the accused on probation by the First Appellate Court was justified. Hence, the revision is dismissed. 18.3.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE