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
10 paragraphs · 230 wordsR.L. Anand, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners but has (sic) made a prayer that
the petitioners may be visited (sic) leniency in the matter of sentence and they may be (sic) the benefit of probation under the Probation of
Offenders Act as occurrence has taken place as back as on (sic). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the (sic) has no serious objection if
the relief sought is (sic)to the petitioners. The object of the law is not to punish an offender but also to reclaim him Therefore, I am of the opinion
that it is a fit case where (sic) benefit of probation can be granted to the petitioners. They are ordered to be released on probation (sic) their
furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds in the (sic) or Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of Chief (sic) Magistrate, within two months from
today undertaking that during the period of one year they will (sic) commit any offence and will maintain peace and be of (sic) behaviour. They will
also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (sic) as costs of litigation. In case the petitioners (sic) the terms of the bonds, they will 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.