IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 648 of 2002 Date of decision: 16.02.2009 Narinder Kumar ......Appellant versus State of Punjab .....Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Simsi Dheer, AAG, Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J The petitioner accused(herein referred to as “the petitioner”) has assailed the judgment dated 29.08.2001 passed by Shri Harminder Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and maintaining the conviction and sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 354 IPC, rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 506 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 452 IPC as awarded by the Magistrate. According to prosecution version, on 14.05.1998, Pawan Kumar was on his duty. At about 5:30 p.m, when his wife Jyoti had gone to the market, the petitioner entered his house, assaulted and intimidated her minor daughter, Renu aged about 12-13 years and intimidating his daughter, the petitioner fled away. Consequently, Renu informed her mother and case was registered and investigated and on trial he was convicted and sentenced accordingly by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Ludhiana vide judgment dated 26.07.2000 as under:- Under Section Imprisonment 354 IPC R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. 506 IPC R.I for six months. CRR No. 648 of 2002 [2] 452 IPC R.I for one year. The appeal preferred by him also failed. At the very outset. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not set forth any argument on the point of conviction and has thrown the petitioner at the mercy of the Court by urging that some leniency may be extended in the quantum of sentence. The petitioner is a government employee posted in Punab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The occurrence took place way back in the year 1998. He has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He being public servant appears to have reformed himself. Admittedly, he is first offender and no bad antecedents have been brought on record so as to prove him a habitual offender. Resusltantly, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if he is extended the benefit of probation. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that he is released on probation on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety of the like amount for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for one year and failing which, he would be ready to suffer the sentence as and when called for. However, this order would not prove to be any disability on his service career. He would also pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as costs of litigation within three months from today. The fine awarded by the trial court is also converted into costs of litigation. Failing to pay the costs, this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludiana for compliance. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 16th February, 2009 SKaushik