Crl. Revision No. 3013 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3013 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 28, 2010 Kamal Jyoti and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. APS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. M.S. Sachdeva, Advocate, for respondent No.2. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The petitioners/accused, Kamal Jyuoti and Ashok Puri, have preferred this revision against the judgment dated 12.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 13.6.2007 passed by the SDJM, Nakodar, vide which the accused were convicted for the offence under Section 500 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. The facts, in brief, are that Gurdev Kaur-respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 500 and 109 IPC, contending therein that the petitioners got published a Crl. Revision No. 3013 of 2009 2 news item in their newspaper 'Ekta Lehar Weekly' on 29.8.1999 reporting therein that she had illicit relations with one Malkeet Singh and when they were being prevented from indulging in those illicit relations by her son, then in order to remove that hurdle, both of them killed him. According to the complainant, that news item was false and was published by the petitioners in order to defame her and to lower her prestige in the eyes of the general public. After reading that news, her relatives started disassociating with her. To prove her case in the trial court, the complainant examined herself as CW-1 and Dalip Singh as CW-2. An opportunity was given to the petitioners, by recording their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the complainant. They were called upon to enter on their defence and they tendered bed head ticket with regard to Karam Singh Ex. D.1, copy of DDR Ex. D2, copy of voter card Ex. D3 copy of passport Ex. D4 and copy of ration Card Ex. D5, in their defence. In view of the evidence produced on record, learned trial court recorded finding of conviction and sentence against the petitioners. They preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners have come up with this revision. Notice of the revision was given to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. At the time of arguments only order of sentence passed against the petitioners was challenged. It was argued on their behalf that they were the first offenders and are the sole bread earners of their family. No reason was recorded by the trial court for not extending the benefit of probation, though a prayer was made in this regard on their behalf. He states that the Crl. Revision No. 3013 of 2009 3 sentence imposed upon the petitioners be set aside and they be released on probation and that the complainant can well be compensated by way of costs. This prayer of the counsel for the petitioners has been opposed by the counsel for the complainant and the State counsel on the ground that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to publish a false news against the complainant in order to defame her. When the offence committed by the petitioners has been established to the hilt, there was no question of granting the benefit of probation. It is not the case of the State that the petitioners are the previous convicts. The offence under Section 500 IPC is punishable with two years imprisonment. In these circumstances, the petitioners could have been dealt with under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court was required to record reasons, as per provisions of section 361 of the Code, while refusing the benefit of probation. No plausible reason was recorded by that Court. The petitioners are not previous convicts and it has been alleged that they are the sole bread earners of their family. They are stated to be more than 50 years of age. Keeping in view these facts and the nature of the offence, I think it expedient to release the petitioners on probation instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon them is set aside and they are ordered to be released on probation under Section 360 Code on their executing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each case for a period of two years, to the satisfaction of the trial court, to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so, during that period and to keep peace and be of good Crl. Revision No. 3013 of 2009 4 behaviour, in the meanwhile. They are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 357 of the Code to the respondent No.2/complainant within a period of two months from today and in default thereof they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The fine already deposited shall be paid to the respondent/complainant and shall be adjusted towards the said compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. January 28, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE