IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 458 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20th May, 2009 Mahabir Pershad and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In a criminal complaint, petitioners were tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Siwani Camp at Bhiwani. The trial Court found petitioners guilty of offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. Petitioners were also convicted for offence under Section 323 read with section 149 IPC and were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. Petitioners were further convicted for offence under Section 452 read with section 149 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the same, petitioners had filed an appeal. The appellate Court acquitted the petitioners for offence under Section 452 IPC. However, sentence awarded under Section 148 and 323 IPC was Criminal Revision No. 458 of 2009 (O&M) upheld. Since only sentence of fine was awarded, therefore appellate Court awarded compensation of additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. The amount of fine and compensation has already been deposited. Notice of motion was issued. Record was requisitioned. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that Calandra, which was produced on record, though has been taken into consideration by the appellate Court for acquitting the petitioners for offence under Section 452 IPC, the appellate Court has erred in upholding the conviction under Section 323 IPC, as in the facts and circumstances of the case, only apprehension of breach of peace was to be construed and no injury was caused by the petitioners. Two courts below have believed the witnesses to the extent that simple injuries were caused to them. Therefore, petitioners have been rightly fastened with the fine and compensation. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 20, 2009 rps 2