Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2252 (PNJ)

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab

2011-12-21

ALOK SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) - Notice of motion. 2. On being asked, Mr. A.S. Rai, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has accepted notice on behalf of the State. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 4. Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the commission of offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 336 IPC. Petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo, vide order/judgment dated 15.1.2011. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Appeal preferred by the accused/petitioner was dismissed and order/judgment passed by learned trial Court was affirmed by learned Appellate Court/Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 2.12.2011. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the present revision on merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that although there is no injury, however, petitioner is ready to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. within a month, therefore, his prayer to release the petitioner on probation may be considered sympathetically. 7. Mr. A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The sword of damocles is not to hangover the head of the petitioner for all times to come. He has suffered mental agony due to registration of this criminal case against him. 9. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals. Instead of keeping the accused/petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals, releasing him on probation with enhancement of fine to be paid to the injured as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. seems to be best option to avoid tension and to maintain harmony between the parties. Instead of keeping the accused/petitioner in the company of hardcore criminals, releasing him on probation with enhancement of fine to be paid to the injured as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. seems to be best option to avoid tension and to maintain harmony between the parties. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, I direct that the accused/petitioner be released on probation on furnishing of probation bond and one surety bond to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for two years. Petitioner shall also furnish undertaking before the learned trial Court of the effect that petitioner shall maintain good behaviour and shall not indulge in the wrongful activities during the period of probation. However,fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court to be paid to the injured as compensation. Petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court to be paid to the injured as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, or petitioner is found involved in criminal activities during the period of probation, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 10. With above mentioned modification this revision petition stands disposed of. --------------