IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1947 of 2009
Date of decision : August 27, 2009
Sahi Ram ....Petitioner
versus
Pritam Singh and others
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Sahi Ram has filed this revision petition assailing judgment
dated 11.4.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby
respondent nos. 1 to 7 have been ordered to be released on probation of
good conduct and also ordered to pay compensation to the injured person
including the petitioner-complainant, while upholding the conviction of the
respondents.
Respondent nos. 1 to 7 along with Shakuntala and Kaushalya
were convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Palwal vide
judgment dated 19.9.2008 under sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 506 IPC
read with section 149 IPC and vide order dated 22.9.2008 Shakuntala and
Kaushalya were ordered to be released on probation whereas respondent
nos. 1 to 7 were awarded substantive sentence. Respondent nos. 1 to 7
preferred appeal wherein they did not challenge their conviction but prayed
for release on probation as noticed in paragraph no. 9 of the impugned
judgment of the appellate court. The learned appellate court accepted the
Criminal Revision No. 1947 of 2009 -2-
said prayer of respondent nos. 1 to 7 and ordered their release on probation
of good conduct and also directed them to pay Rs 3500/- each as
compensation including the fine amount of Rs 1500/- each which was also
converted into compensation.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has preferred this revision
petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate
court has not recorded any reason for releasing respondent nos. 1 to 7 on
probation. The contention cannot be accepted because in paragraph no. 13
of the impugned judgment as well as in preceding paragraphs, reasons have
been recorded for ordering release of respondent nos. 1 to 7 on probation.
In addition thereto, in view of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 as well as sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. , special reasons have to be
recorded for denying the benefit of probation in such cases. Respondent
nos. 1 to 7 are not previous convicts. The offences were not punishable
with imprisonment for life. There was no special reason to deny the benefit
of probation to respondent nos. 1 to 7. There is, thus, no infirmity much
less illegality in the impugned judgment of the appellate court granting
benefit of probation to respondent nos. 1 to 7.
In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant revision
petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
( L.N. Mittal )
August 27, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'