IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) Crl. Revision Petition No.1109 of 2009 (O&M Hans Raj. ....... Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others. ....... Respondents. .... (2) Crl. Revision Petition No.1746 of 2009 (O&M) Hans Raj and others. ....... Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab. ....... Respondent. Date of Decision: 24.9.2009 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioners in both the revision petitions. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. By this common order, I propose to dispose of the above- mentioned revision petitions which have been directed against two Crl. Revision No.1109 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... judgments dated 18.9.2008 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') having their origin from one incident. Since these petitions are barred by limitation, separate applications have moved for condonation of delay of 66 and 53 days, respectively. On 30.8.1998, a fight is said to have taken place between petitioner-Hans Raj & his associates on one hand and respondent-Mitha Singh & his associates on the other hand. Injuries were sustained by both the sides. The police submitted cross challans against them. After trial, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Saboo convicted and sentenced both the parties under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. In appeals, the appellate Court upheld the conviction, but on consideration of the prayer made on behalf of the rival parties, directed them to be released on probation. While doing so, it was noticed that the accused persons were not previous convicts and they had also shown remorse and had faced the agony of trial for seven years. Feeling dis-satisfied, petitioner-Hans Raj has filed Crl.Revision No.1109 of 2009 for reversal of the judgment of the appellate Court in so far as it related to the releasing of respondent nos. 2 to 5 therein on probation and for sentencing them to severe punishment, whereas he and his companions have preferred Crl.Revision No. 1746 of 2009 for setting aside of the judgment of the appellate Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have Crl. Revision No.1109 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... perused the record. The Court, which is dealing with awarding of sentence to an accused person, is certainly entitled to evaluate all the materials brought before it. If the accused person shows remorse and is repentant for his conduct and is not a previous convict, then the Court can consider releasing him or her on probation because these are factors which are relevant and go a long way in enhancing the concept of `just sentencing' and also in enhancing the cause of reformatory justice. Having gone through the impugned judgments, I find that the discretion exercised by the appellate Court can neither be termed to be arbitrary nor injudicious so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The factum of the accused persons being first offender and the fact that they have faced the agony of criminal prosecution for the last seven years have been taken into consideration by the appellate Court while releasing them on probation. Moreover, the revision petitions are barred by time and there is no satisfactory explanation available on record for condonation of the delay in their filing Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed on merits, as also being beyond limitation. September 24,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge