Criminal Revision No.1461 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1461 of 2007 Date of Decision: May 19, 2009 Didar Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Criminal Revision No. 1549 of 2007 Sohan Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRR No.1549 of 2007) Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab ** Sabina, J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two revision petitions as both have arisen out of the same FIR. Petitioners-Didar Singh and Sohan Singh were tried for an offence under Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) in FIR No.101/2000 dated 16.5.2000 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Criminal Revision No.1461 of 2007 2 Amritsar by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Amritsar. Vide order dated 20.2.2003 petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each . Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Amritsar vide judgment dated 17.5.2007 dismissed the appeal and set aside the sentence passed on petitioners and directed that they be released on bail under Section 4 of Offenders Act,1958 (`the Act' for short) on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10000/- with one surety of like amount. Hence, the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:- “The brief case of the prosecution is that on 16.5.2000 SI Dharam Pal made a statement that he was present in Court Complex, Amritsar in connection with some work and around 5 PM he met C.Gurmej Singh No. 1532 and SPO Ashwani Kumar No.416. C.Gurmej Singh told him that they had come to produce accused Hardip Singh and his son Balkar Singh in FIR No. 66/2000 u/s 326/324 of IPC of PS Kathunanagal. Both the accused were handcuffed together by SPO Didar Singh. Accused Dilbagh Singh and Palwinder Singh were handcuffed in custody of SPO Sanjeev Kumar No.512.Const.Sohan Singh was taking care of them. ASI Tarlok Singh 2120 Batala was incharge of police party. ASI had gone to SDM Court. In the meanwhile, SPO Didar Singh No.498 opened the handcuffs of Balkar Singh who succeeded in absconding. Accused Balkar Singh escaped due to negligence of ASI Tarlok Singh 2120, C.Sohan Singh 567 and Criminal Revision No.1461 of 2007 3 SPO Didar Singh 498. On the basis of the statement of SI Dharam Pal, formal FIR No. 101/2K dated 16.5.2000 was registered. The investigation was conducted. During the investigation, ASI Tarlok Singh was found innocent and challan against the accused/appellant Balkar Singh, C.Sohan Singh 567 and SPO Didar Singh No.498 was present". After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the State, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Petitioners were convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 223 IPC by the trial Court. In appeal, they did not challenge their conviction but prayed that a lenient view may be taken. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by taking a lenient view ordered that the petitioners were entitled to be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act . The order of sentence passed by the trial Court was set aside and the petitioners were ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act. In these circumstances, since the petitioners had not challenged their conviction before the appellate Court and already a lenient view has been taken by releasing the petitioners on probation, no further interference is called for. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge May 20, 2009 arya