Criminal Revision No. 925 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 925 of 2006. Date of Decision : 19.5.2011. Mandroop Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated April 20th, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Bhiwani, affirming the judgment of conviction dated October 30th, 2003 and order of sentence dated October 31st, 2003 of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu whereby petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under: - Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.500/- RI for 2 months 337 IPC RI for 3 months Rs.250/- RI for 1 month 338 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.500/- RI for 3 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits but only prays for release of the petitioner on probation on the ground that he has retired from Haryana Roadways as driver. If his conviction and sentence are maintained, he would lose his retiral benefits. 3. Taking into consideration the nature of offence, the Criminal Revision No. 925 of 2006 2 petitioner is a retired government employee, he has already undergone actual sentence of about 1 month and that he is in his 60s and in case his conviction and sentence are maintained, he would lose his retiral benefits, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on probation. Support to this view can be had from the authority Rajbir vs. State of Haryana 1985 AIR (SC) 1278 in which accused was a Government employee and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC but was released on probation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court primarily on the ground that he was in Government service and if the conviction and sentence are maintained, he would lose his job. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld but it is ordered that instead of being sentenced to any punishment, the petitioner be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act provided that he enters into bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. He shall receive the sentence if and when called by the Court during the said period and shall maintain the peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime. 5. The revision is disposed of accordingly. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 19.5.2011. SN