IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1379 of 2000 Date of decision: 26th February, 2009 Tarlochan Singh … Petitioner Versus Gurmit Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed by Tarlochan Singh against the grant of probation to Gurmit Singh respondent No.1. Gurmit Singh respondent No.1 along with three other co- accused was tried in case FIR No. 73 dated 15.09.1992 registered at Police Station Rampura under Sections 324, 323 and 34 IPC. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that respondent Gurmit Singh is guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC and had awarded sentence of one year and fine of Rs.500/-. Trial Court had considered the prayer of the counsel for Gurmit Singh for grant of probation but the same was declined on the ground that Gurmit Singh was earlier convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC. Trial Court rightly took into consideration that a previous convict cannot be granted benefit of probation. Criminal Revision No.1379 of 2000 An appeal was filed by Gurmit Singh. Appellate Court upheld the conviction but relying upon a judgment of this Court in “Chhindo v. State of Punjab” 1985 (2) RCR 251, held that previous conviction is not a bar to the release of accused on probation under Probation of Offenders Act, which is applicable to the State of Punjab. It seems that the appellate Court made a distinction that previous conviction is disability for grant of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and not under Probation of Offenders Act. I shall refrain myself to enter into the realm of this controversy, only on the ground that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 14th September, 1982 and accused has already suffered a protracted trial of about 17 years. In case contention of the counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then sentence is to be awarded upon the accused. What should be the adequate sentence after 17 years for causing simple injury, was a question posed by this Court to the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that law has to operate. This court is also conscious of the fact that respondent Gurmit Singh was released on probation in July 2000. He has undergone the period of probation. After nine years, if order of the probation is set aside, he will suffer sentence because for a period of nine years, this Court was not able to decide the revision petition. Failure on the part of the Court to administer criminal justice should not cause unnecessary hardship to the respondent, who had only caused simple injury 17 years ago. Therefore, the order of the appellate Court is modified and instead of probation, fine of Rs.10,000/- is imposed. Section 324 IPC vests powers in the Court to impose sentence of imprisonment or sentence of fine or both. Accordingly, awarding of sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- will suffice. Respondent Gurmit Singh was already directed by the trial Court to deposit Rs.10,000/-, which was to be 2 Criminal Revision No.1379 of 2000 paid as compensation to the injured. The amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- already deposited by the respondent be treated as fine. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 26, 2009 rps 3