Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Sharma vs Gurmail Singh on 6 November, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRR No.270 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2010
Date of Decision: November 06 ,2012
Ashok Sharma ...........Petitioner
Versus
Gurmail Singh ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
Sabina, J.
Respondent-Gurmail Singh had faced trial for an offence under Sections 323, 355, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short `IPC'). The trial Court, vide judgment dated 22.12.2005, ordered the conviction of the respondent under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. Respondent was ordered to be released on probation vide order dated 22.12.2005. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order dated 22.12.2005, both the parties preferred the appeals. Learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.3.2009 dismissed both the appeals filed by the parties. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-complainant.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissal.
The case of the complainant in brief, was that both the CRR No.270 of 2010 2 petitioner as well as the respondent were practising lawyers in the Courts at Kharar. On 02.03.2000, both the parties were present in the Court in connection with a case. The Presiding Officer was recording evidence in a case. At about 10.20 a.m., respondent started misbehaving with the petitioner. All of a sudden, without any provocation, respondent slapped the petitioner in the Court.
Petitioner led his evidence in support of his case. Respondent denied the allegations levelled against him in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and led his defence evidence.
Petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the acquittal of the respondent under Section 355 IPC.
Learned trial Court held that so far as the offence under Section 355 IPC was concerned, the complaint was silent nor any evidence had been led in this regard. The appellate Court has also observed that even the complainant himself had not stated that he had been intentionally dishonoured by the respondent. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly ordered the acquittal of the respondent under Section 355 IPC.
Both the parties are practising lawyers at Kharar. Learned appellate Court has observed that that there was nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had again committed any such act after he was ordered to be released on probation. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that both the parties were practising lawyers at Kharar, the Courts below had rightly CRR No.270 of 2010 3 exercised their jurisdiction and held that respondent was liable to be released on probation. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 06, 2012 arya