Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 991 (PNJ)

Ghanshyam Dass v. State Of Haryana

2000-08-25

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Ghanshyam Dass has filed the present petition against the judgment dated 3.7.2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (I) Faridabad by which the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal was upheld. 2. The case against the petitioner was registered at the behest of his wife Kanchan Bala. On 6.7.1995, she made a statement levelling allegations against her husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), Subhash and another brother-in-law (Dever) Amar Nath that they had started harassing her for bringing inadequate dowry within 2-3 months of her marriage. She had also stated that a demand of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith T.V. and Scooter was made by Ghanshyam Dass in the month of September, 1994 and on 22.12.1994, her husband and in-laws had given her beating and left her at Palwal. Since all these assertions constituted an offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, an FIR was registered thereunder and after the trial, the petitioner and his brother Amar Nath were convicted. The appeal filed against this conviction and sentence in so far as it relates to the petitioner, the same was dismissed whereas the appeal of Amar Nath was accepted and his conviction and sentence was set aside. Hence the present revision petition at the instance of Ghanshyam Dass. 3. Before me, the conviction has not been challenged and the solitary submission which has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below ought to have accepted the submissions made before them to the effect that in view of the protracted trial that has been faced by the petitioner, the ends of justice require that he should be dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act as has been held in Amarjit Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) RCR 625. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and am of the view that the petitioner should be granted the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. subject to the condition that he will compensate the complainant by paying her a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The present petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and the petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The present petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and the petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad and be bound down for a period two years. The petitioner will be released subject to the condition that he will make the payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of his release. In case, the aforesaid amount is not paid within the time stipulated, the present petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. The petition stands disposed of with the above directions. Petition allowed.