Criminal Revision No.2035 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2035 of 2003 Date of Decision: 10.09.2010 Pawan Kumar @ Kala ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. R. S. Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 22.09.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 26.07.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 338 IPC. Allegations against the petitioner are that he, while placing naked electric wire in his land in a negligent manner, caused grievous hurt to the complainant Sukhdev Raj. The petitioner was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Conviction not assailed but learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated Criminal Revision No.2035 of 2003 -2- in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity apparently on the face of record or any perversity has been suggested, warranting interference at this revisional stage, therefore, no exception could be made to the impugned judgment regarding conviction. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony on account of protracted proceedings in the Courts for the last 11 years. He has already undergone some period of the substantive sentence and is ready to compensate the complainant. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. 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, Gurdaspur, 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. However, the petitioner is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant Sukhdev Raj, failing which, this petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) 10.09.2010 Judge A.kaundal