JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi,J.
1. These criminal appeals are directed against the
judgment and order dated 18.11.1997 of the Additional Sessions
Judge in Sessions Case No. 106/96 holding the appellants guilty
under Section 411 IPC. Further, the learned Judge vide his order
dated 19.11.1997 sentenced the appellants to undergo RI for three
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, Raman Kumar,
Irshad, and Shanker do not wish to challenge the order of
conviction and confine their arguments only to the question of
sentence. I, therefore, confirm the order of conviction. It is
submitted that the ocurrence took place as far back as on
8.2.1994 and the appellants have been facing the ordeal of trial
for nearly 7 years. It is also submitted that Raman Kumar
(appellant in Crl.A.457/97) has already undergone imprisonment
for one year and two months, Irshad (appellant in Crl.A.469/97)
has undergone one year and one month. As regards Shanker,
(appellant in Crl.A.474/97), it is stated that he has served
sentence of imprisonment four months more than as was awarded to
him by the trial court. Learned counsel for Shanker, in this
view of the matter, states that Shanker having completed his
sentence, ought to be released on the period already undergone
and ought not be required to undergo further imprisonment even
though a question has arisen whether in default of payment of
fine he was to undergo six months imprisonment in addition to
what he has already undergone. In the case of Raman Kumar and
Irshad, it is argued that they having undergone substantial
amount of their sentence, no useful purpose served in requiring
them to undergo the remaining portion of their sentence and ought
to be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned
counsel for the State submits that in the facts and circumstances
of this case he would not be averse to the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act being extended to these two
appellants.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
given my careful consideration to the material available on
record, I am of the view that in the present case, the
appellants, Raman Kumar and Irshad, have suffered the agony of
triallasting for nearly 7 years. Besides that, they have
already undergone some period in custody. There is no allegation
that these appellants are previous convicts. Keeping these
circumstances in mind and the fact that the offence of which
these appellants have been convicted is not punishable with life
imprisonment, they deserve the benefit of probation under Section
4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
4. In this circumstance, while maintaining the conviction
of the appellants, the sentence of imprisonment and fine as
awarded to them is set aside. Having regard to the circumstances
of the case including the nature of the offence and the character
of the offenders, it is considered expedient to release them on
probation of good conduct. It is, therefore, directed that the
appellants, Raman Kumar and Irshad, be released for a period of
two years on their entering into a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties each in the
like amount to appear and receive sentence as and when called
upon during such period and, in the meantime, the appellants
shall keep peace and be of good behavior. The requisite bonds
to be furnished by the appellants and the sureties to the
satisfaction of the trial court/CMM/ACMM within a period of three
weeks failing which the order of the trial court shall come into
effect. The fine, if already, paid, is directed to be treated as
litigation expenses to the State.
5. As regards Shanker (Appellant in Crl.A.474/97), he has
already served the entire sentence and need not be required to
suffer any further imprisonment.
6. With this modification, the order under challengeis
upheld. The appeals are disposed of. The bail bond and the
sureties already furnished are discharged.