Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 677 (PNJ)

Gita v. Tarsem Lal

2004-07-07

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Gita daughter of Hans Raj, wife of Tarsem Lal has filed the present revision petition against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 14.2.1990, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, dated 17.11.1988, granting probation to all the respondents was dismissed on the ground that she has no locus standi to file the appeal. 2. There is no need to enter into detailed discussion so far as merits are concerned as Ms. Tanu Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly contends that at this stage she does not intend to attack the impugned order releasing the respondents on probation but confines her arguments to the limited aspect of compensation, which should have been granted to the petitioner from atleast Tarsem Lal, the husband, who stands convicted under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. The other grouse of the petitioner is that the costs of litigation awarded as Rs. 400/- each against Tarsem Lal, Babu Ram and Soma Devi is also on a lower side and the same may be enhanced. 3. Mr. Pheruman appearing for the respondents, without entering into the legal aspect of maintainability of the appeal against releasing the respondents on probation, has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation from the respondents. He then contends that Babu Ram and Soma Devi have otherwise gone very old by now as Babu Ram was of the age of 70 years in the year 1988 and Soma Devi was 65 years old at that time. 4. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides and going through the record, I am of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ends of justice would be adequately met if Tarsem Lal respondent No. 1, husband of the petitioner, who has been convicted under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, is directed to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is ordered accordingly. The costs of litigation of Rs. 400/- imposed upon Tarsem Lal respondent by the trial Court are also increased to Rs. 700/-. However, the costs of litigation imposed upon Babu Ram and Soma Devi respondents shall remain as it is. 5. 10,000/- under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is ordered accordingly. The costs of litigation of Rs. 400/- imposed upon Tarsem Lal respondent by the trial Court are also increased to Rs. 700/-. However, the costs of litigation imposed upon Babu Ram and Soma Devi respondents shall remain as it is. 5. Tarsem Lal respondent shall deposit the amount of compensation as also the enhanced costs of litigation before the trial Court within three months from today. 6. Resultantly, the present revision petition stands allowed in the terms indicated above. Revision allowed.