CRR No.692 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.692 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.01.2011 Sukh Raj Singh ....Petitioner Versus State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for U.T., Chandigarh. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed against the order dated 28.11.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, whereby petitioner was found guilty under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and in default thereof, petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days, as well as judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dated 7.3.2003, vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. CRR No.692 of 2003 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that revisionist should be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Sansar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Revision No.658 of 2002 decided on 10.3.2009. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the U.T., Chandigarh, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. Applying the principles and ratio of the judgment in the matter of Sansar Singh (supra), conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, sentence awarded to him is set aside and he is ordered to be released on parole under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of six months, on his furnishing probation bonds and on undertaking with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court that he will keep peace and be of good behaviour. In case he is found to be indulged in such like activities, sentence awarded by the Courts below shall stand revived automatically. However, fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court to be paid to the LRs of the deceased as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. It is made clear that in case probation bonds are not furnished and the enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, CRR No.692 of 2003 (O&M) -3- this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge January 10, 2011 R.S.