CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2469 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 21, 2011 Babu Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in Crl. Revision No.2469 of 2011). Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. (in Crl. Revision No.2563 of 2011) Mr. H. S. Gill, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in Crl. Revision No.2564 of 2011) Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2469 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of three Criminal Revision Nos.2469 of 2011 (Babu Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another), 2563 of 2011 (Karnail Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another) and 2564 of 2011 (Prem Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and another). All the four petitioners, in these separate petitions, stand convicted for offences under Sections 325, 323 and 342 IPC. Upon conviction, the petitioners have been imposed sentence of 1 year RI coupled with fine of `1,000/- under Section 325 IPC. Sentence imposed under Sections 342 and 323 IPC is 6 months and 3 months respectively. Notice in all the revisions was issued only qua quantum of sentence. Learned counsel appearing in these cases have very forcefully pleaded for considering the release of the petitioners on probation. It is urged that their plea in this regard was declined on consideration, which is not relevant. It is stated that the petitioners, by now, have undergone rigorous imprisonment of approximately 2-1/2 months out of the sentence imposed. Though, petitioner Babu Ram, who was serving as ASI, has retired but the other petitioners, Karnail Singh, Darshan Singh and Prem Parkash, are still in service of Haryana Police. Counsel would plead that the petitioners would deserve mercy and sympathetic CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2469 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: consideration as conviction would seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioners to seek pensionary benefits and other such benefits, which ultimately would effect their families as well. This is a case where the petitioners had beaten one Chiranji Lal, who was working in Nursery. ASI Babu Ram had sent one Constable with a boy to be employed in the Nursery. This was refused. When apprised, petitioner, Babu Ram, had got the complainant to Nursery and gave him beatings. It is stated that the complainant had become unconscious. He was given beatings to teach him a lesson for disobeying the dictates of the police. The police officials generally are known to arrogate to themselves such authority to deal with public and thus indulge in such illegal actions. Our Constitution has taken special care for protection of life and liberty of citizens but still the use of third degree methods by the police is not unknown and has been surfacing off and on with some regularity. Why our police act in this manner to violate Constitution mandate, while investigating the crime instead of adopting some modern scientific techniques really can not be understood. Here is a case where the petitioners apparently have gone berserk in misusing their uniform to beat a poor nursery employee. For this, the petitioners may not deserve any sympathy but the fact that they still would CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2469 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: be entitled to the legal protection and legal consideration being citizens of this Country and human beings can also not be ignored. Their act may be inhuman but they are human beings like any other, having families and children, who may also suffer, if any consideration due to them as per law is denied to them. The offence proved against them is under Sections 325 IPC etc. The plea for release of the petitioners on probation was considered by the Trial Court but was declined by observing that menace of torture and using third degree methods by the Police Force fork the purpose of settling their personal scores and has assumed alarming proportions in our country. This statement appears to be too sweeping. Undoubtedly, the petitioners had taken the law into their own hands and that is why they stand before this Court with their conviction for various offences. The consideration for release on probation, be under the Probation of Offenders Act or under Section 360Cr.P.C., is a mandatory requirement. The Court is obliged to look into the provisions of Probatio of Offenders Act and Section 360 Cr.P.C. while dealing with conviction of an accused person. The difference in the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 Cr.P.C. is only concerning the age of the accused persons but the provisions otherwise are analogous. No doubt, the provisions CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2469 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 5 }: confer a discretion on the Court and the Court is to exercise its discretion according to the circumstances of each case. The accused can not claim his release on probation as a matter of right for exercise of such discretion in his favour. The Court generally has to form an opinion having considered the circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the character of the offender, that in a particular case, offender should be released on a probation for good conduct. Misplaced, leniency and sympathy should never influence the Court for the exercise of such discretion. The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are intended to attempt a possible reformation of an offender instead of inflicting on him the normal punishment for a crime. Modern Criminal Jurisprudence recognizes that no one is born criminal and that a good many crimes are product of socio, economic milieu. The present trend in the field of penology is that the efforts should be made to bring about correction and reformation of an individual offender and not to resort to retributive justice. (See Raju Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1977 Criminal Law Journal 837). Invariably a delay in concluding the prosecution and protracted trial has been a valid consideration for release on probation. The person convicted of offences under Sections 324, 325 IPC is legally entitled to plead for consideration of his case for release on probation. Rather, now it is a mandate of the statute to consider the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2469 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 6 }: release of convict accused on probation. The trial Court did consider the prayer for release of the petitioner on probation but denied the concession primarily because of they being police officials. One may have to keep in mind that the police officials after all are human beings like others. They are equally entitled to certain beneficial provisions, like Probation of Offenders Act. The case for their consideration for release on probation can not be simply shut on the ground that they are police officials or that use of third degree method by police is prevalent. The petitioners have acted more in their individual capacity and may have used their uniform to their advantage, but they did not act in this case as being police officials. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, very strongly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for their release on probation. As per counsel for the complainant, the petitioners are police officials, who had taken the law into their hands and, thus, they do not deserve any concession or leniency. It is further pointed out that the complainant had filed an appeal for enhancement of the sentence, which of course has been declined. It is also pointed out that petitioner, Babu Ram, had been convicted in another case but subsequently acquitted by the Appellate Court. Against that, the State has filed a revision, which stands admitted. The fact, however, remains that as on date, CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2469 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 7 }: petitioner, Babu Ram, is not a convict. He has already retired and is aged 62 years. The other petitioners are in service. This incident is an old one and is of 1994 vintage. The petitioners have faced this prosecution and are still facing the aftermath thereof. They have by now undergone one third of their sentence. They appear to have suffered enough. Considering these facts and it being an old incident, case for grant of concession of probation is made out. The present revision petitions are partly allowed. Order of conviction passed against the petitioners is maintained whereas the order of sentence is set-aside and the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year. Upon their release, the petitioners shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, on or before 13.01.2012 with an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. In addition, the petitioners would be asked to furnish an undertaking before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, that they will not indulge in such activities in future. The amount of fine, however, is enhanced to `5,000/- from `1000/- under Section 325 IPC, which shall be treated as costs of the proceedings. December 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE