CRR No. 537 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. 9758-59 of 2010 in/and CRR No. 537 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.5.2011 Balkar Singh ........ Petitioner Versus Ajit Singh and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Bhupinder Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. RPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. JORA SINGH, J. CRM No. 9758 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. CRM No. 9759 of 2010 For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 13 days in filing the instant revision petition is condoned. CRR No. 537 of 2010 Balkar Singh-petitioner filed a private complaint under Sections 342/326/324/323/307/148/149 IPC against 10 accused but vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.11.2008, CRR No. 537 of 2010 -2- rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar, accused namely Nirmal Singh, Sarwan Singh, Harjinder Singh and Ajit Singh, were convicted under Sections 324/323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under: 1. Ajit Singh under Section 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Under Sections 323/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 200/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Harjinder Singh Under Section 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 1500/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 200/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. CRR No. 537 of 2010 -3- 3. Nirmal Singh Under Section 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 200/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 4. Sarwan Singh Under Section 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 200/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.11.2008, Ajit Singh,Harjinder Singh, Nirmal Singh and Sarwan Singh, filed appeal but as per judgment dated 23.9.2009, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, appeal was CRR No. 537 of 2010 -4- dismissed but they were directed to be released on probation and to deposit ` 5000/- each as cost of litigation payable to Balkar Singh, injured as compensation. Story, in brief, is that on 17.6.1999 at about 6.00 p.m. accused had caused injuries to Balkar Singh. After preliminary evidence, vide order dated 27.9.2000, accused were summoned to face trial under Sections 323/324/326/342/148/149 IPC. After appearance of the accused again evidence was led by the complainant. After evidence, trial Court opined that a prima facie case is made out punishable under Sections 148/323/324 read with Section 149 IPC. After framing of charge again evidence was led by the complainant. After the close of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Ultimately, against the judgment of conviction and order sentence dated 15.11.2008, appeal was preferred by respondents- accused and they were directed to be released on probation vide judgment dated 23.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that initially private complaint was filed against 10 accused but out of 10 accused, 4 were convicted and 6 accused were acquitted by the trial Court. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appeal was preferred by the respondents accused. Respondents-accused were ordered to be released on probation by the Ist Appellate Court. Argued that impugned judgment dated 23.9.2009, rendered by the learned CRR No. 537 of 2010 -5- Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, be modified because Ex. P-1 is the copy of MLR. Five injuries were noticed on the person of Balkar Singh. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were by sharp edged weapon. Respondents-accused should be directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. There was no reason to release them by giving the benefit of probation. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 argued that State case was registered against the petitioner and some other persons. Private complaint was filed by the petitioner. Five injuries were noticed but all the injuries were simple in nature. ` 20,000/- was deposited by the respondents accused payable to the injured as compensation. One of the respondent-accused namely Ajit Singh was suffering from Cancer. Respondent-accused namely Harjinder Singh, is also not keeping good health and is a patient of paralysis. Respondents-accused are facing trial for the last 10 years and they have deposited ` 20,000/- payable to the injured as compensation. After going through the file I am of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for respondents-accused seems to be reasonable one. Private complaint was filed by the petitioner on the allegation that on 17.6.1999, at about 6.00 p.m. respondents-accused fully armed had caused injuries to the petitioner-complainant. Five injuries were noticed on the person of Balkar Singh-complainant but all the injuries were found to be simple in nature. Occurrence is dated 17.6.1999. Complaint was filed against 10 accused but only 4 were CRR No. 537 of 2010 -6- convicted and sentenced. Against acquittal of 6 accused no appeal by the State. Against the acquittal of 6 persons no revision or appeal by the present petitioner. Request of the present petitioner is simply to set aside the judgment dated 23.9.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. File shows that State case was registered against the petitioner and others and in that case, petitioner and his co-accused were convicted and sentenced. Against conviction no appeal. In a private complainant respondents-accused were convicted and sentenced Injuries noticed on the person of Balkar Singh, were found to be simple in nature. Respondents-accused were also directed to deposit ` 5000/- each payable to the injured as compensation. Occurrence was on 17.6.1999. Respondents-accused are the first offenders. After the present occurrence no further litigation amongst the parties. Ajit Singh, respondent-accused is suffering from cancer. Harjinder Singh, respondent-accused is also not keeping good health and is suffering from paralysis. Respondents accused are facing trial for the last about 10 years. Each of the respondent was directed to deposit ` 5000/- as cost of litigation. Payment deposited was ordered to be paid to Balkar Singh as compensation. In 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 868, “Daljit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab through Secretary Home Affairs”, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under Sections 360/361 Cr.P.C. accused released on probation. Sections 360 Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act, pertains to release of accused. Under Section 361 CRR No. 537 of 2010 -7- Cr.P.C. it is obligatory on Court to apply one or the other beneficial provision except for special reasons. Where the provisions of the Probation Act are applicable the employment of Section 360 Cr.P.C. is not to be made. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld. No reason to differ with the discretion exercised by the Ist Appellate Court, by giving benefit of probation. For the reasons recorded above, the instant revision petition without merits is dismissed. May 2, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE