Criminal Revision No.1356 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1356 of 2000 Date of decision: 8th January, 2010 Labh Singh and another ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. C.S.Brar, D.A.G.Punjab, for the respondent-State. A.N.Jindal,J.(Oral) The petitioners Labh Singh and Gulshan Singh, by way of this revision petition have challenged the legality of the judgment dated 31.10.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, partly accepting the appeal of the petitioners. The trial court vide judgment dated 24.08.1999, had sentenced these petitioners under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code along with other offences and awarded the sentence to both the accused for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. However, the appellate while acquitting them under Section 323/342 and 149 IPC maintained, the sentence under Section 452 IPC. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. However, Criminal Revision No.1356 of 2000 2 the petition being very old one and the presence of the parties or their counsel could not be procured, I proceed to decide the same after examining the record with the help of Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab, has taken me through the statement of Darshan Singh, made before the Additional Sessions Judge on 31.10.2006, which reveals that the complainant had compromised with the petitioners. However, the complainant is now not before me to get affirmation of his statement before the court but the fact the complainant has not turned up to dispute or withdraw the statement lends me to infer that the parties have compromised. As such while finding sufficient evidence against the petitioners to connect them with the crime and looking to the aspect that there is a little scope of interference in the concurrent findings returned by the courts below in the judgment of conviction. I affirm the same. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is observed that the case against the petitioners was registered in the year 2000 and they have faced agony of criminal proceedings since then. No previous bad antecedents have been brought on record so as to deny them the benefit of probation. As such, the ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners are extended the benefit of probation. Consequently, while dismissing the revision, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the extent that the petitioners be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 on their executing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bonds they will be ready to Criminal Revision No.1356 of 2000 3 serve sentence as and when called for. Fine if deposited be treated as cost of litigation. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 8th January, 2010 Shivani Kaushik