This order will dispose of both the aforementioned revision CRR No.654 of 2013 2 petitions filed against judgment dated 06.08.2012 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissing appeal filed by present petitioners-accused against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh vide which petitioners-accused were convicted for offence under Section 223 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to fine of `2,000/- each except to the extent that the quantum of sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for five months.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including both the judgments rendered by learned courts below.

Briefly stated, allegations against petitioners-accused are that, they were handed over custody of accused Gurjant Singh son of Nazar Singh, who was an accused in a case under Sections 332 / 353 / 224 / 309 / 504 IPC, for being produced before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una on 24.02.2003. The accused was being transported in Himchal Road Transport Corporation bus. The petitioners alongwith accused -Gurjant Singh alighted from the bus near the Kisan Bhawan Chowk, Sector 22/23 and 35/36, Chandigarh and boarded a local Chandigarh Transport Undertaking bus for Bus Stand, Sector 43, Chandigarh. However, on the request of Gurjant Singh, they had taken him to STD booth for making telephone call and thereafter, he requested to use toilet and hence, he was taken to the toilet and at that time his handcuffs were removed and however, the accused succeeded in running away.

Present petitioners-accused faced trial. They were convicted and CRR No.654 of 2013 3 sentenced as aforementioned. Their appeal was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh as aforementioned.

It has been contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that they did not want to press the present revision petitions so far as the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned. Hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only.

I have also gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence. There is nothing as to why this Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction should interfere in the judgments of conviction rendered by both the courts below.

However, so far as order of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that they being police officials were acting in the discharge of official duties and that at the most, it is a case of negligent act on their part due to which accused -Gurjant Singh succeeded in running away. It is further contended that they are not involved in any other case and that they are having small children to look after and they have suffered much due to protracted trial since the year 2003. It is further submitted that offence under Section 223 IPC is punishable with maximum simple imprisonment for two years or with fine or both. It is further contended that however, no reason whatsoever was given by learned courts below as to why benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act') was not granted to them.

It is pertinent to reproduce Sections 360 and 361 of Code of CRR No.654 of 2013 4 Criminal Procedure (for short the ' Cr.P.C ), which read as under:-

convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, 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:

361. Special reasons to be recorded in certain cases.-- Where in any case the Court could have dealt with,-

A careful perusal of the aforementioned provisions shows that court is required to give special reasons for refusing benefit of probation in those cases in which said benefit can be granted to accused. However, the same has been denied to them without giving any special reasons as provided under Section 361 Cr.P.C.

Petitioners-accused have already undergone about one month and 20 days of the sentence. They are not previous convicts. They have already faced much agony of protracted trial. Hence, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to petitioners-accused.

Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is partly accepted. While maintaining the judgment of conviction as passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh and as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, the order of sentence is, hereby, set aside.

Petitioners are directed to be released on probation on their furnishing probation bonds of good conduct for a period of one year to the CRR No.654 of 2013 7 satisfaction of learned trial court. During this period, they be keep peace and be of good behaviour and be called upon to receive the sentence in case of violation of any condition of the bond.

The amount of fine already deposited by the petitioners be treated as the cost of proceeding.

Disposed of accordingly.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 3, 2013. JUDGE 'om'