Criminal Revision No.1469 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1469 of 2000 Date of Decision 12.05.2010 Des Raj and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 20.09.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the accused'), against the judgment dated 17.09.1998, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Anandpur Sahib, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323/34, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 325/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 342 IPC. However, in appeal accused Kehar Singh and Des Raj were acquitted for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC whereas appeal of co-accused Satnam Singh was accepted. The allegations against the accused are that they armed with gandasi and stick (danda) gave injuries to the complainant Gurmail Chand and his wife Darshna. The accused were charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. Their appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of Criminal Revision No.1469 of 2000 2 sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, no such illegality much less irregularity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction stand affirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995. The petitioners-accused have already suffered a lot of agony due to the pendency of proceedings in the Courts. He appears to be the first offender. 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 that they are ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year, failing to comply with the terms of bond, they would be ready to serve remaining part of sentence. The petitioners are also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each) on account of compensation to the injured within three months from today, failing which this petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto. However, release of the petitioner Kehar Singh on probation, will have no effect on his service career. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 12.05.2010 mamta-II