Criminal Revision No.2000 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Criminal Revision No.2000 of 2003 Date of Decision: 4.2.2011 Smt. Anita .... Petitioner Versus Krishan Kumar & another .... Respondents (2) Criminal Revision No. 1745 of 2003 Date of Decision: 4.2.2011 Krishan Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the complainant. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate, for the accused. NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL) Krishan Kumar was tried by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon under Sections 354 and 452 of Indian Penal Code in case bearing First Information Report No. 184 dated July 7th, 1998 registered in Police Station Bilaspur. He was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 354 IPC 6 months Rs.500/- Criminal Revision No.2000 of 2003 2 452 IPC 6 months Rs.500/- RI for 1 month 2. Accused preferred an appeal. By judgment dated July 10th, 2003, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon maintained the conviction but released him on probation for a period of one year. 3. By filing Criminal Revision No. 2000 of 2003, complainant has assailed the order of Additional Sessions Judge to the extent of releasing the accused on probation. 4. Criminal Revision No.1745 of 2003 has been filed by accused seeking setting aside of both the judgments. 5. Perusal of judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge shows that it was submission of learned counsel for the accused that he be released on probation. His submission was accepted and accordingly he was released on probation. In view of this, there is no force in the revision filed by the accused. Hence, the same is dismissed. 6. So far as the revision filed by the complainant is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court commented upon the law of probation in Jugal Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar 1972 AIR (SC) 2522 as under:- “The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. The above object is in consequence with the present trend in the field of penology, according to which effort should be made to bring about correction and reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to retributive justice. Modern criminal jurisprudence Criminal Revision No.2000 of 2003 3 recognizes that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are the product of socio- economic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their association with hardened criminals. The Act gives statutory recognition to the above objective. It is, therefore, provided that youthful offenders should not be sent to jail, except in certain circumstances” 7. In view of above legal position and taking into consideration the fact that the accused has suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 12 years. Neither he is previous convict nor has he indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case and is the only bread earner of his family, in considered opinion of this Court releasing of the accused on probation by the First Appellate Court was justified. Hence, both the revisions are dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 4.2.2011 SN Criminal Revision No.2000 of 2003 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1745 of 2003 Date of Decision: 4.2.2011 Krishan Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL) For orders, see Smt. Anita vs. Krishan Kumar & another, Criminal Revision No.2000 of 2003 decided on February 4th, 2011. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 4.2.2011 SN