In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 566 of 2003 Date of decision: March 06, 2009 Kaur Singh ... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-accused Kaur Singh (herein referred to as “the petitioner”) against the judgment dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 354 IPC. The brief resume of facts is that on 19.4.1999 Gurmit Kaur along with her nephew Satpal Singh, on her way to village Dhurkot was present at the bus stand Rureke Kalan awaiting for bus. In the meantime, Kaur Singh and Harnek Singh (since deceased) of village Dhurkot also came there. They started using filthy language against Gurmit Kaur. Harnek Singh (since deceased) caught hold of Gurmit Kaur from her left arm and tried to embrace her and the petitioner gave prick on her back and tried to molest her. Satpal, who was accompanying Gurmit Kaur pushed them aside. The persons present at the bus stand including her husband's elder brother Gurdev Singh intervened and both the accused fled away. The case was investigated Crl. Revision No. 566 of 2003 -2- and challan was presented in the Court. Harnek Singh died during trial and as such the petitioner was convicted and sentenced accordingly. Appeal preferred by him also failed. Heard. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for taking some lenient view on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence took place way back in the year 1999 and the allegation against the petitioner is merely that he gave prick at the back of Gurmit Kaur and attempted to embrace her. Any way, he has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He appears to be first offender and no bad antecedents have been put forth in order to enable this Court to dub him as habitual offender. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine already awarded against him is converted into costs of litigation. He is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- more towards costs of litigation with two months failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala for compliance. March 06, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge