Crl. Revision No. 3339 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3339 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 30, 2011 Ramesh Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner-complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the judgment/order dated 20.8.2010, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge- III, Bhiwani while confirming the judg- ment of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri for offences punishable under Sections 323/325/34 of Indian Penal Code, has modified the judgment/order of sentence to undergo simple imprison- ment for a period of two years under Sections 325/34 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of ` 500/- each and to undergo for a period of simple im- prisonment for a period of six months for an offence under Sections 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of ` 250/- each into release of the ac- Crl. Revision No. 3339 of 2010 2 cused/respondents herein on probation for a period of six months on their furnishing probation bonds to the tune of ` 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of the Court subject to deposit of ` 500/- as fine by each accused which shall be paid to the complainant which shall be paid to the complainant by converting into compensation. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that complainant Ramesh Kumar son of Kurda Ram was a resident of Village Charkhi and was the tea-vendor by profession. His son Krishan also used to help him in the business. On 1.2.2000 at about 6/7.00 PM his wife Anguri Devi visited his tea-vend in Dadri and informed him that accused Jai Bhag- wan, his wife Raj Bala and sons Deepak and Sanjay were pelting stones on their house in Village Charkhi. He immediately shut down his vend and ac- companied his wife to the village. Their son Krishan was also with them. When the trio reached near village PARSH they were intercepted by the ac- cused and accused Jai Bhagwan, who was having an axe, gave a blow on his head, accused Raj Bala caught hold of him and accused Deepak and Sanjay also inflicted injuries on his person. His wife Anguri Devi and son Krishan Kumar were also taken on tasks. Their hue and cry was heard by Matu Ram and Dharambir who got them saved from the clutches of accused. All the three injured persons were later on hospitalized where they were medico le- gally examined. On the basis of complaint’s statement recorded by HC Bhudev Parsad FIR in the instant case was registered and investigations were launched. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. State- ments of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and the accused were arrested. After completion of other for- malities of investigations, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was pre- pared and submitted in the court for putting the accused for trial. Crl. Revision No. 3339 of 2010 3 Thereafter, the prosecution led its evidence and examined PW-I SS Dhankhar, PW-2 Ramesh, PW-3 Anguri, PW-4 Krishan Kumar, PW-5 Ram Chander, PW-6 Dr. HL Beniwal and PW-7 HC Mahender Par- tap. Statements of the accused under Sections 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, in which they pleaded themselves to be innocent. However, no defence evidence was led. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court held the appellants/accused guilty under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years alongwith fine of ` 500/- each for the commission of offence un- der Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, fine was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant un- der Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, accused-re- spondents preferred criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani which was heard and decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhi- wani vide judgment impugned. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that learned Appellate Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction while convert- ing the order of sentence into the release on probation for a period of six months. Learned counsel for the revisionist-complainant has vehemently ar- gued that since punishment for an offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code was to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years, therefore, Appellate Court should have granted probation minimum for a period of two years. No other point was raised. Crl. Revision No. 3339 of 2010 4 Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads as un- der :- “4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct :- (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on proba- tion of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order im- pose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. (4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention Crl. Revision No. 3339 of 2010 5 from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. (5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer con- cerned.” Perusal of Section 4 of the Act reveals that Court can release the accused on probation for such period as Court deems fit but not exceed- ing three years. Section 4 of the Act nowhere stipulates that period of proba- tion would be for the same period as of sentence. Learned Court while di- recting the release on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Act can, also in addition to the release on probation, direct that offender shall remain under the supervision of the Probation Officer for such period not less than one year under Section 4 (2) of the Act. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist-complainant does not hold water and is liable to be rejected. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 30, 2011 Anand