Crl. Rev. No.1515 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No. 1515 of 2005 Date of Decision: 18 - 2 - 2010 Rajpal .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Hemlata Balhara, AAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petitioner was named as accused in case FIR No.59 dated 5.7.2001 registered at Police Station Behal under Sections 456, 457 and 511 IPC. The case set out against the petitioner is that on 5.7.2001 Ramesh Kumar complainant lodged the present FIR with SI/SHO Om Parkash. Complainant stated that he is permanent resident of Behal. He is posted as a teacher in Rajasthan. He used to leave his house early in the morning for attending his duty and come in the evening. On 5.7.2001, complainant was sleeping in his house. Wife of the complainant Shakuntla and son Manoj Kumar were also sleeping. At about 2.00 A.M. a boy Crl. Rev. No.1515 of 2005 [2] entered the house by climbing over the wall with an intention to commit the theft. An attempt was made by him to snatch the gold chain worn by Shakuntla around the neck. Wife of the complainant raised a noise, due to which complainant and his son Manoj Kumar woke up. They saw the accused and identified him as Rajpal alias Raj. The accused made good of his escape from the spot. Prosecution examined Ramesh Kumar as PW1. Manoj Kumar son of the complainant appeared as PW4 and Shakuntla wife of the complainant appeared as PW5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court held the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 457 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 511 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Conviction was maintained and sentence was upheld. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not assail the conviction but taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is facing the trial since 9.7.2001 and he has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence, the same be construed as mitigating circumstances and sentence be reduced suitably. In the present case, no theft was committed. It is stated that petitioner only made an attempt to commit the theft. Petitioner is in corridors of the Courts for the last about nine years. He has already suffered Crl. Rev. No.1515 of 2005 [3] mental pain and agony of protracted trial. Further more, petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to follow the path of rectitude. Therefore, petitioner is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year. Petitioner shall furnish bonds/surety bonds to this effect to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In case of breach of any of the terms and conditions of the bonds, the trial Court may call upon the petitioner to serve the sentence. The petitioner during the period of probation shall maintain good conduct, peace and good behaviour. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Same shall be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 18, 2010. JUDGE RC