CRR No.3114 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3114 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2011 Vinod Kumar and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press present petition on behalf of petitioner No.2, as he has already been released on probation by learned lower appellate Court. Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being disposed at this admission stage. Petitioner No.1 found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment by JMIC, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 20.7.2009 by JMIC, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 20.7.2009 as under: - U/s 452 IPC : To undergo RI for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. CRR No.3114 of 2011 (O&M) -2- U/s 325 IPC : To undergo RI for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. In appeal preferred by accused/petitioner No.1, learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 29.11.2011, affirmed the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court and appeal filed by the accused/petitioner No.1 herein was dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 does not want to press the present revision on merit and requests that since petitioner No.1 was found guilty under Sections 452/325 IPC and maximum period of sentence awarded is one year and six months, hence petitioner No.1 may be released on probation. He further submits that co-accused/petitioner No.2 has already been released on probation by learned Appellate Court, therefore, case of present revisionist be also treated at par with him. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, states that petitioner No.1/accused is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals. Instead of keeping the accused/petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals, releasing him on probation with enhancement of fine to be paid to the injured as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. seems to be best option to avoid tension and to maintain harmony between the parties. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, I direct that the accused/petitioner No.1 be released on probation on CRR No.3114 of 2011 (O&M) -3- furnishing probation bond and one surety bond to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for two years. Petitioner No.1 shall also furnish undertaking before the learned trial Court of the effect that he shall maintain good behaviour and shall not indulge in the wrongful activities during the period of probation. However,fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.75,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court to be paid to the injured as compensation. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within 15 days from today, with the Trial Court to be paid to the injured as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, or petitioner is found involved in criminal activities during the period of probation, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge December 13, 2011 R.S.