Crl. Revision No. 3253 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3253 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.12.2011 Balbir Singh @ Veera Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Abhishek Chautala, Assistant Advocate Gen- eral, Punjab, has accepted notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, present pe- tition is being disposed at this admission stage. Petitioner was found guilty under Sections 326,324,323,452 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months; he was further sentenced to undergo rig- orous imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ years under Section 324 IPC; he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year un- der Section 323 IPC; he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of Crl. Revision No. 3253 of 2011 (O&M) 2 fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul, vide judgment dated 02.09.2009. In appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner, learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 25.11.2011, modified the sentence keeping in view the age and antecedents of the accused to the following extent :- “Sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused under Section 326 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.” Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the pres- ent revision on merit and requests that since petitioner was found guilty under Sections 326,324,323,452 IPC and maximum period of sentence awarded is 2 years, hence the petitioner may be released on probation. Further contends that reasonable compensation as fixed by this Court to be paid to the injured under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. shall be deposited by the accused within such time as fixed by this Court. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, states that petitioner/accused is first time offender and no other criminal case is registered against him. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is first time offender, in the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals. Instead of keeping the accused/petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals, releas- ing him on probation with enhancement of fine seems to be best option to avoid tension and to maintain harmony between the parties. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, I direct that the accused/pe- Crl. Revision No. 3253 of 2011 (O&M) 3 titioner be released on probation on furnishing of probation bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for 2 years. Petitioner shall also furnish undertaking before the learned trial court to the effect that petitioner shall maintain good behaviour and shall not indulge in the wrongful activities during the period of probation. However, fine imposed upon the petitioners is enhanced to `40,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the trial court to be paid to the injured as compensa- tion under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount before the learned trial court within one month from today which shall be payable to the injured. It is made clear that in case compensation amount is not deposited, as directed above, or petitioner is found involved in criminal activities during the period of probation, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification this revision petition stands disposed of. ( Alok Singh ) December 22, 2011 Judge Anand