Crl. Revision No.279 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.279 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: November 2, 2011 Dalbir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. APS Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner-Dalbir Singh was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bathinda on 15.4.2002 for offences under Sections 465/466/471 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 465 IPC and one year coupled with a fine of `200/- under Section 466 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months coupled with `200/- fine for an offence under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order and the Crl. Revision No.279 of 2003 -2- Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction as well as the sentence as imposed. The allegations against the petitioner are that on the basis of letter written by Additional Director General Police, Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, a case for bogus Scheduled Caste Certificate submitted by the petitioner, was allegedly made out against the petitioner. Inquiry was held and the bogus Scheduled Caste Certificate was found to have been prepared. On the basis of this certificate, the petitioner had received the service benefits. Accordingly, a case was registered against the petitioner, which led to the prosecution of the petitioner and final order of conviction. The petitioner has impugned his conviction and the sentence as imposed through the present petition, which was admitted on 13.2.2003 and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. The petitioner has, accordingly, continued to remain on bail. The petitioner has hardly undergone any period of custody of just about 15 days. Considering the nature of the allegations made and proved against the petitioner, there may not be much case of leniency made out. However, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the incident and the complaint was made in the year 1999. After protracted trial, the petitioner was convicted in the year 2002. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in the year 2003. Since then, his revision is pending before this Court. On the basis of this conviction, the petitioner has lost his job. The advantage, which he had gained by submitting the alleged bogus Crl. Revision No.279 of 2003 -3- Scheduled Caste Certificate, thus, is no more available to the petitioner. The petitioner had allegedly shown his caste to be Ramdasia and had entered the service in the reserved category. Though the petitioner had been able to serve nearly for a period of 21 years, but that advantage or the service benefits obtained by the petitioner are no more available to him. The petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 2.4.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, contends that the petitioner has suffered enough for this misconduct on his part. Counsel contends that requiring him to undergo rigorous imprisonment at this advanced age will further add to his miseries. As per the counsel, the petitioner has suffered enough by losing his job and has even remained under the agony of conviction and sentence staring at him. Counsel submits that the petitioner has shown repentance over his action and prays that he be released on probation. It is noticed that the appellate Court did not consider the prayer of the petitioner for release on probation and simply brushed it aside by observing that case for release on probation is not made out. In view of the circumstances and considering the advanced age of the petitioner and the fact that he has been made to loose the benefit which he had unfairly and illegally gained, I am of the view that case for consideration for his release on probation is made out. The aspect of release on probation, if not considered properly, is required to be so considered as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eliamma Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 47. Considering the repentance shown by the petitioner, a Crl. Revision No.279 of 2003 -4- case for giving chance to the petitioner to reform himself is made out. The petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that he will behave in future. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant the benefit of probation to the petitioner for which this Court has ample powers. The present revision is partly allowed. Order of conviction passed against the petitioner is maintained whereas the order of sentence is set-aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year. Upon his release, the petitioner shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda on or before 25.11.2011 with an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. In addition, the petitioner would be asked to furnish an undertaking before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, that he will not indulge in such activities in future. The amount of fine, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the petitioner and be treated as costs of the proceedings. Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate, appearing as assisting counsel to the Senior counsel appearing in this case has undertaken on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would not claim any service benefits on account of this order of his release on probation. November 2, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE