HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. A. No. 1192/93 E . Criminal Appeal u/s 1 1(2) Probation of Offenders Act,_ 1958. (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Present:— None for the appellant. None for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rakesh‘Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent No. 4. ORAL-JUDGEMENT (Passed on 02/08/2010) 6' 1. None for the appellant. Bailable warrant returned unserved with an endorsement that appellant is not residing in the given address. No other address is available. In absence of any new address of the appellant, appeal is considered and heard in absence of appellant. 2. Memo of appeal and judgment impugned perused. .vx ‘‘K. Appellant Mrs. Bani Banarjee W/o R.L. Complainant Banarjee, aged about 46 years, l r/o Jairam Nagar, now residing in Jabrapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur. Versus Respondents 1. P.J.P.Rao s/o P. Bhusanam, aged Accused Persons about 42 years, Asst. Station Master, Jairam Nagar, S.E. Railway, now posted in Budhar, “F - Distt. Shahdol. 2. V.J.M.Raju s/o V.S.Prakash Rao, aged about 3O years, r/o Waltare, Bishakhapatanam . (Andhra Pradesh) 3. A.I.M.D.Kuppawararn s/o- A. Jakab, aged about 29 years, r/o Pimwaran, P.S. Piinwaram, Distt. West Godawari (Andhra Pradesh) Respondent 4. State of M.P. through District Prosecution Magistrate, Bilaspur. 3. By the judgment dated 18/8/93 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 60/82,‘ while First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur maintaining the conviction of respondents No. 1, 2 85 3 under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code also conviction of respondents No. 1 85 3 under Section 323 of l the Indian Penal Code and conviction of respondent No. 2 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code instead of sentencing them had released them under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering the period of pendency of trial of 19 years and the age of respondents No. 1, 2 8L 3 learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has maintained the conviction but considering the special circumstances of the pendency of the trial for 19 years, First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur released the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 on probation. Considering the judgment impugned and - the discretionary power exercised by the Cg‘urt below, I do not find any ground for interference. Consequently, criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. // Sd/— T. P. Sharma Judge