CRR No.3051 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3051 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.02.2011 Gurdeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner was found guilty under Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kharar, vide judgment dated 9.2.2008: - (i) Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (ii) Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (iii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused/petitioner preferred appeal against the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, CRR No.3051 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Roopnagar/Appellate Court vide order dated 9.11.2010 by observing as under: - “I also find no force in this contention because by non- examining the investigating officer, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit because the occurrence has been fully proved by the complainant as well as the eye witnesses. Moreover, it is admitted fact the investigating officer had died during the pendency of the trial, therefore, by non-examining of the investigating officer is not fatal to the prosecution case. As such, this contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is also not helpful to the accused-appellant.” Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the present revision on merit and requests that since petitioner was found guilty under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and maximum period of sentence awarded is one year, hence the petitioner may be released on probation. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The sword of damocles is not to hangover the head of the petitioner for all times to come. He has suffered mental agony due to registration of this criminal case against him. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals. Instead of keeping the accused/petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals, releasing him on probation with enhancement of fine to be paid to the LRs of the deceased/injured as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. seems to be best option to avoid tension and to maintain CRR No.3051 of 2010 (O&M) -3- harmony between the parties. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, I direct that the accused/petitioner be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing of probation bond one surety bond to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for one year. Petitioner shall also furnish undertaking before the learned trial Court of the effect that petitioner shall maintain good behaviour and shall not indulge in the wrongful activities during the period of probation. However,fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- out of which Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the LRs of the deceased and Rs.20,000/- shall be distributed equally to all the injured as compensation, over and above the compensation if any awarded by M.A.C.T. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court to be paid to the LRs of the deceased/injured as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, or petitioner is found involved in criminal activities during the period of probation, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge February 16, 2011 R.S.