Baldev Singh vs Amarjit Kaur

Rekha Mittal, J.—Through the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgments passed by the Courts below convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence u/s 323 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not assail the judgment of the trial Court qua conviction of the petitioner. However, he may be heard on the quantum of sentence.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Amarjit Kaur filed a criminal case in 2004 in regard to occurrence dated 5.3.2004. The petitioner put in appearance before the trial Court in pursuance to summoning order dated 27.9.2006. He faced the pangs of trial and Proceedings before the Appellate Court for the last more than five years. It is further submitted that co-accused of the petitioner namely Hardev Singh was acquitted by the appellate Court by giving him the benefit of doubt. He has argued with vehemence that neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court adverted to the issue of entitlement of the petitioner to be released by extending the benefit of probation. The Petitioner is not a previous convict and has been convicted for offence u/s 323 IPC, which is non-cognizable. He has been awarded sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 500/-. It is argued that keeping in view the character and antecedents of the petitioner coupled with the nature of offence for which he has been convicted, he is entitled to be released on probation.

The respondent did not appear to contest the case of the petitioner.

There is nothing on record to doubt correctness of submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below reveals that the Courts below have not recorded any reason or adopted any process of reasoning to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of probation in the light of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable u/s 323 IPC. His co-accused Hardev Singh has been acquitted by the appellate Court.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstance when examined in the light of the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled to be given the benefit of probation. In this view of the matter, the judgments passed by the Courts below are modified to the extent that the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for offence u/s 323 IPC, on his furnishing probation bond in the sum Rs. 2000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar undertaking to keep peace and exhibit good conduct during probation period of one year failing which, to appear before the Court concerned to receive sentence as and when called upon to do so, during the aforesaid period. Fine deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards costs of the prosecution. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.