CRR No.1639 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-24.9.2010 Dharambir son of Chandan ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Ms.Sonia Jain, Advocate for Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Magistrate convicted the accused (private respondents) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each under section 323 read with section 149 IPC; to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each under section 324 read with section 149 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 148 read with section 149 IPC, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction dated 5.10.2007 and order of sentence dated 9.10.2007. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Although the petitioner-complainant did not challenge, however, the accused (private respondents) did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial Magistrate and filed the appeal. The CRR No.1639 of 2010 2 first appellate Court, while maintaining the conviction of the accused, granted them the benefit of probation under the provisions of section 360 Cr.PC, vide impugned judgment dated 30.11.2009. 3. The petitioner-complainant did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of Ist Appellate Court and filed the present petition. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with her valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 5. As is evident from the record that the Ist Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and released the private respondents on probation, vide impugned judgment, the operative part of which is as under:- “In view of above discussion, as the appellants have faced agony of trial since last about 12 years and there are no reported bad antecedents and injuries suffered by the complainant party are simple in nature and on non vital part of their body, so the appellant deserves benefit of probation under section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The offences under sections 148, 323 and 324 IPC are punishable with maximum punishment up to 3 years and these are covered within the purview of section 360 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 5.10.2007 is maintained while the sentence of the appellants is reduced and the appellants are given benefit of probation under the provisions of section 360 Cr.PC in the manner that they shall furnish probation bonds before the learned trial court for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each for a period of one year with an undertaking to keep peace and good behaviour during this period and to appear and serve sentence in case any further report of wrongful act or criminal act. The appellants shall also deposit compensation of Rs.1000/- each in addition to the fine already deposited by them before the learned trial Court. Each appellant has already deposited a fine of Rs.3500/- and the total amount deposited by them CRR No.1639 of 2010 3 comes out to be Rs.24,500/- which shall be treated as compensation/costs of proceedings. All the injured namely Sukhbir, Sukhdevi, Karambir, Chandan and Dharambir, except Nehro who had statedly expired, shall be given Rs.5000/- each as compensation out of the amount deposited by the appellants and the remaining amount of Rs.6500/- (31500-25000) shall be adjusted towards costs of proceedings. Probation bonds and compensation amount of Rs.1000/- each be deposited before learned trial court within one month from today failing which appellants shall be called upon to serve the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court.” 6. Meaning thereby, the first appellate Court has recorded the cogent and legal reasons for releasing the private respondents on probation. The impugned judgment containing such valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same is illegal and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 24.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge