IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1862 of 2005 Date of Decision 06.12.2010 Krishan Kumar ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Balraj Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 07.09.2005, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 10.06.2002, vide which the trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 406 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 25.07.1995, he after obtaining the answer sheet, removed two leaves and sent the same outside for solving the paper from some body else. On the basis of complaint Ex.PA, FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. Consequently, on trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Heard. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence, led by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the Criminal Revision No.1862 of 2005 -2- right perspective. No such illegality much less perversity or any manifest error apparent on the record, has been pointed out which may result into miscarriage of justice or cause any prejudice to the petitioner, therefore, the findings returned by both the Courts below, do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Faced with the situation, learned counsel has sought some leniency for the petitioner on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1995. The petitioner has suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings, pending in the Courts for the last fifteen years. He has already undergone one month and five days of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have been pointed out to enable this Court to dub him as habitual offender. The petitioner is a young boy at the threshold of the career. Thus, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, it would be in the fitness of things to send him to imprisonment again. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the petitioner be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, for compliance. 06.12.2010 (A.N.Jindal) mamta-II Judge 06.12.2010 mamta-II