IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 275 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 30, 2010. Siri Chand ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Gurnam Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S.Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as ‘Cr.P.C.’) against order of sentence dated 03.09.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide which conviction of respondents – accused for offence under Section 411 IPC was upheld and however, respondents – accused were ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. on their entering into bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, for a period of two years and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that stolen property was kept in possession by respondents – accused and hence, learned Appellate Court should not have given the benefit of probation to the respondents-accused. A careful perusal of judgment passed by learned trial Court and learned appellate Court shows that property involved is a he-buffalo. Respondents-accused faced trial for a period of 7 years. They are not previous convicts. Hence, there were no special reasons for learned trial/ appellate Court to have denied the benefit of probation to respondents- accused as mandated under Sections 360/361 of Cr.P.C. Learned appellate Court has rightly placed reliance upon Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal, 1979 CAR 385 (SC), for giving the benefit of probation to respondents-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned appellate Court granting benefit of probation to the respondents-accused. Moreover, a sum of Rs.4,000/- has also been granted to the complainant as compensation out of the amount of fine. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 30, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 2