Crl.R.No.2399 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2399 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 1, 2010 Bikkar Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.L.Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.') against judgment dated 20.7.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which the respondent-accused has been held guilty for offences under Sections 324, 447 IPC and, however, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, he was ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- for one year with the undertaking to keep peace during the said period and be of a good behaviour and receive the sentence in case of any breach of the bond. Respondent-accused was also burdened with costs of Rs.500/-. The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence. It has been contended that the respondent-accused has criminally trespassed into the fields of the complainant and caused injuries to him and hence he should not have been given benefit of probation by learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have perused the impugned order, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. It is a case of version and cross-version. The present petitioner Crl.R.No.2399 of 2010 (O&M) -2- along with co-accused have faced trial in the cross-version case. The injuries found on the person of petitioner-complainant are on fingers only and all the injuries are simple in nature. Hence, in view of these facts, there was no special reason for learned trial Court for not granting the benefit of probation to the respondent-accused. Respondent-accused is also not a previous convict. Hence, it cannot be said the any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in releasing the respondent-accused on probation instead of sentencing him, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 1.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge