CRR No. 2608 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRR No. 2608 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2011 Raj Singh and another ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab for the State. ... Alok Singh, J (Oral). This revision petition is filed by the revisionist – petitioners against the judgment dated 9.9.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, well as judgment dated 22.8.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, whereby petitioners and other co- accused were convicted under Sections 452/323/324/325/148/149 IPC and were awarded sentence of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.300/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months each, CRR No. 2608 of 2010 2 under Section 452 IPC, R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months each under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC, R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month each under Section 324 read with Section 149, R.I. for three months under Section 323 IPC and fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month each, R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month each, under Section 148 IPC, Shinda @ Kulbir was awarded sentence of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.300/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months, under Section 325 IPC and Bant Singh was awarded sentence of R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month, under Section 324 IPC. Feeling aggreived from the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Patiala, which was decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala on 9.9.2010, thereby releasing Shintu @ Karamjit Singh and Shinda @ Kulbir Singh on probation on the ground that if they are sent to prison, it is likely that they will come in contact of hardened criminals there and they themselves may become criminals. However, probation was not granted to Raj Singh and Ram Chand. There is no record to justify that Raj Singh and Ram Chand, petitioners are found guilty previsously also in any criminal offence, hence in the opinion of this Court, they are also entitled to be released on probation. CRR No. 2608 of 2010 3 In view of the above, while maintaining the conviction of Raj Singh and Ram Chand, petitioners, present petition is disposed of with the direction that they be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of one year on furnishing their personal bonds and undertaking with one surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court that they will keep peace and be of good behaviour. In case they are found to be indulged in such like illegal activities, sentence awarded by the Court below shall stand revived automatically. However, fine imposed upon the petitioners is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- each. The petitioners are directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court. On deposit so being made, the Trial Court shall pay the amount to the injured/victim forthwith. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the order of the Court below shall stand revived automatically. With above mentioned modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 21.01.2011 sk.