Crl.Rev.No. 1087 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1087 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.02.2009 Harbhajan Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. The petitioners were tried for an offence under Sections 397, 216, 224 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) in FIR No.315 dated 5.12.2003 registered at Police Station Pehowa. Vide judgment dated 8.2.2007, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Pehowa convicted the petitioners under Section 223 IPC and vide order dated 9.2.2007, the petitioners were ordered to be released on probation subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year. It was further directed that the petitioners shall keep peace and will be of good behaviour during the period of probation. Crl.Rev.No. 1087 of 2008 2 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had preferred an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment dated 29.2.2008. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Brief facts of this case are that main accused Kulwant Singh and others were sent to face trial for the commission of offence under Sections 223, 224, 120-B and 216 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that Avtar Singh ASI made a complaint to Station House Officer, Police Station, Pehowa to the effect that on 15.12.2003 he along with other police officials was on patrolling duty on Gumthala Turning point. A secret information was received that Satnam Singh son of Butta Singh was to be produced in the Court in case FIR No.96 of 2003 under Section 397 IPC by appellant Harbhajan Singh, HC No.3300 and appellant Saheb Singh constable No.3641 from Amritsar Jail. As they were late, they had gone to the house of sister of accused Satnam Singh where brother-in-law of Satnam Singh, namely Kulwant Singh, Bhajan Singh, Charanjit Singh and Laddi were present. When both the appellants were taking the meal at the house of sister of Satnam Singh accused, Satnam Singh accused found an opportunity to make an escape Crl.Rev.No. 1087 of 2008 3 and he ran away on a motor cycle of his son Charanjit Singh and both the police constables were searching for him. Ruqqa was sent to the police Station for registration of the FIR and FIR was registered. During investigation, various stages of investigation were completed and challan was presented against the accused.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners had been ordered to be released on probation but it was not specifically mentioned in the order that they had been released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short). This apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived as the perusal of order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa shows that the petitioners were ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act. As per Section 12 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law a person found guilty of an offence dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or 4 shall not suffer dis-qualification, if any attaching to, a conviction of an offence under such law. The petitioners have not been sentenced for the original offence after they were released on probation. In these circumstance, since the petitioners, who were released on probation under Section 4 of the Act and had furnished the bonds also under the said Act, they will not suffer any disqualification in service on account of their conviction Crl.Rev.No. 1087 of 2008 4 under Section 12 of the Act. No other contention has been raised. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE February 19, 2009 anita