Vasudev vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 353, 336 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short) vide judgment dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 353 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months u/s 336 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 506 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 11.7.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 353 and 506 IPC only and was sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 353 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 506 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the complainant as well as the petitioner were public servants and the occurrence had taken place on a trivial issue. Now the parties have arrived at a compromise. Learned counsel, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 353 and 506 IPC, but has submitted that the petitioner be ordered to be released on probation so that he may not lose his job.

The complainant is also present in the Court in person and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that he has no objection if the petitioner is given the benefit of probation.

The FIR had been lodged due to some misunderstanding and minor dispute between the parties. Both the parties are colleagues and have now put an end to their grievance by amicably settling the dispute.

The petitioner is not a previous convict and is suffering the criminal proceedings since the year 1993. The object of releasing an accused on probation is that he may be given an opportunity to reform himself. The benefit of probation can be denied only to hardened criminals or where restriction has been imposed by Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to release the petitioner on probation.

Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 353/506 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment as imposed by the Courts below is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is further directed that the petitioner shall keep peace and will be of good behaviour during the period of probation. The fine, deposited by the petitioner, be treated as cost of proceedings. The petitioner is directed to furnish the bonds within one month from today, failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.