AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 232 wordsR.L. Anand, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. He has simply made a prayer that the petitioner may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence and he may be extended the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act as the occurrence has taken place as back as on 5.11.1983. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no serious objection if the relief sought is granted to the petitioner. The object of the law is not only to punish an offender but also to reclaim him.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the benefit of probation can be granted to the petitioner. He is ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within two months from today undertaking that during the period of one year he shall not commit any offence and shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. He shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as costs of litigation. In case the petitioner violates the terms of the bonds, he shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to receive the sentence. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.
Copy Dasti.