Criminal Revision No. 1886 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 09, 2010 Crl. Rev. No.1886 of 2009 Harnek Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Crl. Rev. No. 2147 of 2009 Gurjant Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Deep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners (in CRR No. 1886 of 2009) Mr. A.S.Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CRR No. 2147 of 2009 (and complainant in CRR No.1886 of 2009) Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ** Criminal Revision No. 1886 of 2009 2 Sabina, J. Vide this order, both the above mentioned Criminal Revision Petitions bearing Nos. 1886 and 2147 of 2009 are being disposed of as they have arisen out of common judgment. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short` IPC') by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa vide judgment dated 30.7.2005. Vide order of even date, petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC each; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 326 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners had preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Mansa vide order dated 10.7.2009 . Hence, the present revision petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now with the intervention of the relatives and friends, parties have effected a compromise. It was a case of version and cross-version. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323,324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC but has submitted that the petitioners be released on probation. Complainant-Gurjant Singh- injured is present in person and has tendered his affidavit wherein he has admitted the factum of the compromise between the parties. Complainant has not controverted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections Criminal Revision No. 1886 of 2009 3 323,324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment as imposed by the Courts below is set aside. The petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to their furnishing the personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court . It is further directed that the petitioners shall keep peace and will be of good behaviour during the said period of probation. The Fine deposited by the petitioners be treated as costs of proceedings. The petitioners are directed to furnish the bonds within one month from today, failing which, these petitions shall stand dismissed. Revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ( Sabina ) Judge September 09, 2010 arya