IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT GULAB CHAND VS. DAULTI AND ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 234 OF 2004 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated Feb. 13, 2004 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Laxmangarh (Distt. Alwar) in Sessions CaseNo.139 of 2002 whereby the accused respondents Chhidilal was convicted under sections 148, 325, 324/149, 323/149 IPC. Accused Mahendra was convicted under sections 148, 324, 325/149, 323/149, accused respondents Daulti, Mahesh, Pappu, Dinesh, Poorna, Suresh, Shivram, Babulal, Haricharan, Ashok, Charansingh, Shyam, Lallu, Dayalu, and Suraj were convicted under sections 148, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 IPC, and all of them have been given the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and all of them were directed to submit two sureties in the amount of Rs. 2,000/- each with personal bond in the same amount with stipulation to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and as and when they are called they will appear before the court and receive sentence and each accused shall deposit Rs.5,00 as compensation total Rs. 8,500/- out of which Rs. 3,000 shall be paid to injured Pooran and Rs. 1250 to injured Subhash and rest of Rs. 4250/- shall be deposited in court as costs. Accused Chhidilal and Mahendra were acquitted of the offence under sections 308 and 308/149 and accused Daulti, Mahesh, Pappu, Dinesh, Poorna, Suresh, Shivram, Babulal, Haricharan, Ashok, Charansingh, Shyam, Lallu, Dayalu and Suraj were acquitted of the charge under sections 308 read with section 149 IPC. Date of Order : February 5, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. D.C.Tiwari, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K.Singhal, for the non-petitioners. Mr. Hari Bareth, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by Gulab Chand complainant petitioner against the order dated Feb. 13, 2004 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Laxmangarh (Distt. Alwar) in Sessions Case No.139 of 2002 whereby the accused respondent Chhidilal was convicted under sections 148, 325, 324/149, 323/149 IPC, accused Mahendra was convicted under sections 148, 324, 325/149, 323/149, and accused respondents Daulti, Mahesh, Pappur, Dinesh, Poorna, Suresh, Shivram, Babulal, haricharan, Ashok, Charansingh, Shyam, Lallu, Dayalu, and Suraj were convicted under sections 148, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 IPC, and all of them have been given the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and further all of them were directed to submit two sureties in the amount of Rs. 2,000/- each with personal bond in the same amount with stipulation to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and as and when they are called they will appear before the court and receive the sentence and each of the accused shall deposit Rs.5,00/- as compensation total Rs. 8,500/- out of which Rs. 3,000 shall be paid to injured Pooran and Rs. 1250 to injured Subhash and rest of Rs. 4250/- shall be deposited in court as costs. Accused Chhidilal and Mahendra were acquitted of the offence under sections 308 and 308/149 and accused Dati, Mahesh, Pappu, Dineshs, Poorna, Suresh, Shivram, Babulal, Haricharan, Ashok, Charansingh, Shyam Lallu, Dayalu and Suraj were acquitted of the charge under sections 308 read with section 149 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner submitted a written report at Police Station, Kathumar Distt. Alwar on July 15, 2001. On this report the Police registered FIR No.129 of 2001 for the offences under sections 143, 323, and 341 IPC. The police filed challan against the accused respondents l to 17 except Mahendra and Chhidi under sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 325, 324 and 323 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate Kathumar. Charge sheet under section 299 Cr.P.C. was filed against accused respondents Mahendra and Chhidi. They were arrested on December 3, 2001 alongwith 'Farsi'. The case was committed before the Addl. Sessions Judge Laxmangarh. Charges were framed against Chhidi under sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 308, 325 and308/149 IPC and against Mahendra under sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324, 325/149, 308, 308/149 IPC and against other non-petitioners under sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 308/149 IPC. During trial prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents in support of its case. Statements of accused respondnets under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing both the sides, the trial court convicted the accused respondents as mentioned above and all of them were given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Against this order of Addl. Sessions Judge, the present revision petition has been filed. 3. Mr. D.C.Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant petitioner contended that the accused respondents have been convicted by the trial court and entire facts and circumstances have been narrated, hence the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, extended by the trial court is bad in eye of law and just contrary to the findings given by it. The learned counsel argued that the injured witnesses received injuries during the scuffle and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the accused are not entitled to get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents Mr. N.K.Singhal and Mr.Hari Bareth, Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. There is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court extending the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused respondents. Compensation in the amount of Rs. 500/- each total Rs. 8250/- have been directed to be deposited by the accused respondents and out of that Rs. 3,000/- were ordered to be given to injured Puran and Rs. 1250/- were directed to be given to injured Subhash, thus the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. I have gone through the order passed by the trial court and in my opinion the order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 5. For these reasons I dismiss the revision petition being devoid of merit. As the main petition has been dismissed the stay application also stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/