Himachal Pradesh High Court
Raghubir Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 September, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 255 of 2010
Date of Decision: 06.9.2016.
.
______________________________ _____________________________
[
Raghubir Singh .........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ............Respondent.
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1? Yes
For the petitioner:
rt Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional
Advocate General, with Rajat Chauhan,
Law Officer.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 10.11.2010, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division Chamba, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2010, affirming/modifying the judgment and order dated 29.7.2010 and 31.7.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 43-II of 2005, whereby present accused-petitioner is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for having committed offence punishable under Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP -2-Section 279 IPC and to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 550/- for the offence committed .
under Section 337 IPC.
2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that on 20.6.2004, at about 4 pm, Tilak Raj was driving the Maruti Car bearing No. JK 02D-4342, while coming from Samba to Dalhousie. When he of reached at place called Jarai Nainikhad on the road from Pathankot to Dalhousie, at about 4 pm, bus bearing registration No. HP-47-0378 came from opposite side which was being plied by the accused in rash and rt negligent manner and dashed the car, as a result of which, persons sitting in the car sustained injuries. The injuries were found to be simple.
The complainant Tilak Raj made a statement under Section 154 Cr.PC, Ext.PW1/A with regard to the incident on the basis of which, FIR Ext.PW10 /A was registered at Police Station Dalhousie. The complainant Tilak Raj stated that on 20.6.2004, he along with his wife Suman, Son Jatin, daughter Isha, aged about 8 to 10 years and his friend Surender, his wife Anuradha and their two children were going from Samba to Dalhousie in the aforesaid Car. He stated that when they reached near Nainikhad at place Jarari at about 4.00pm, a HRTC bus bearing No. HP-47-0378 came in high speed and struck against his Car, as a result of which his wife, children and wife of his friend and their children sustained injuries.
He further stated that accident took place due to rash and negligent ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP -3- driving of the petitioner-accused who was admittedly driving the bus of HRTC at that relevant time. HC Surjit Singh conducted investigation and .
prepared the site map PW12/A. Vehicles involved in the accident along with documents were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/B and documents presented by the accused petitioner to the police are vide memo Ext.PW7/A. Police got injured persons medically examined at of Swami Harigiri Hospital, Kakira vide application No. Ext.PW12/B. Police also got clicked photographs Ext.PW12/C1 to PW12/C7. Both the vehicles were got mechanically examined by the mechanical expert, rt who rendered his report vide Ext.PW8/A and 8/B. Police also recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC. After completion of investigation police presented the challan against the present petitioner accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P.
3. Learned trial Court below, on being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused framed charges against him under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and under Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses. Learned trial Court below also recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP -4- the case of the proseuciton in toto. However, he did not lead any evidence in his evidence.
.
5. Learned court below on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution as well as statement of the accused, found the present petitioner guilty of having committed offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced of him, as per description given herein above.
6. Present petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, filed an rt appeal under Section 374 Cr.PC, before the learned Sessions judge Chamba, HP, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.11.2010.
However, learned sessions Judge, taking lenient view, modified the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court below and accordingly directed him to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,00/- for offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner accused preferred the present criminal revision petition before this Court praying therein for quashing and setting aside the judgments passed by the courts below.
7. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, counsel representing the petitioner vehement ally argued that the judgments passed by the both the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law as same are not based upon ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP -5- the correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Chaudhary, strenuously .
argued that learned courts below miserably failed to take note of the fact that even in the FIR, there was no allegation regarding rashness, and negligence on the part of the petitioner and as such, therefore, these ingredients being pre-requisite for conviction for the offences for of both the Sections 279 and 337 IPC, judgments passed by the courts below deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Chaudhary, further contended that both the courts below failed to take into consideration rt the fact that proseuciton witnesses nowhere in their statements before trial Court deposed that act of the petitioner was rash and negligent and as such, both the courts below wrongly recorded the judgment of conviction against the present petitioner and as such, same deserves to be quashed. He further contended courts below failed to take note of the fact that no evidence regarding the high speed of the bus at the relevant time was led on record by the PWs. He further stated that even if it assumed that bus was in high speed, same would not amount to rash and negligent unless there is a categorical statement made by the prosecution witness that bus was being driven rashly and negligently. He stated that since none of the prosecution witnesses have stated nothing with regard to the high speed as well as rash and negligent driving of the accused, learned trial Court has fallen in grave error while holding ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP -6- the petitioner guilty for having committed offences, as referred supra.
With a view to substantiate his aforesaid statement, he invited attention .
of this Court to demonstrate that none of the PWs stated qua the aspect of high speed and rash and negligent driving done by the accused at that relevant time. He stated that it has come on record that bus was being driven in normal speed which was categorically stated by PW2 of Sarwan Kumar, Conductor of the bus and PW4 Suman Kumari. PW2 clearly stated that he was sitting in front of the bus and the same was being driven at a very convenient and normal speed by the petitioner.
rt PW4 also stated in her cross-examination that the bus was not being driven in high speed at that relevant time. Mr. Chaudhary stated that courts below miserably failed to take into consideration that at the time of accident, Maruti Car being driven by the complainant, was overloaded, whereas there were as many as eight occupants in the car at that relevant time and as such, adverse inference could have been drawn by the courts below by appreciating the evidence led on record by the prosecution. He stated that as per record maintained by the hospital, none of the occupant was less than ten years while four occupants were major being parents of the minor children and the minor children were aged between ten to thirteen years, which clearly proves that factum of heavy overloading. Judicial notice could be taken by the Court below that it was difficult for driver to control his ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP -7- vehicle while driving his car, rather, it could be safely inferred that driver of Maruti car was being driven negligently and rashly at that relevant .
time. In view of the above, Mr .Chaudhary, prayed that petition may be accepted after setting aside the judgments by the courts below.
8. Per contra, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, of supported the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the impugned judgments suggests that same is based upon the correct rt appreciation of the evidence available on record and prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Rupinder contended that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no interference, whatsoever, of this Court, is warranted and this Court has very limited powers while exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 of the Cr.PC to re-appreciate the evidence when it stands duly proved on record that the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999)2 Supreme Court Cases 452, wherein it has been held as under:-
"In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP -8- is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate .
for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties of and gone carefully through the record.
10. True, it is that while exercising the power under Section 397 rt of Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has very limited power to re-
appreciate the evidence available on record. But in the present case, where accused has been found guilty having committed offences under Sections 279, and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not perverse and same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record, undertook an exercise to critically examine the evidence available on record to reach fair and just decision in the case.
11. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon' ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP -9- sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct .
irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced herein below:-
"8.The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous of supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, rt therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order."
12. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had a occasion to peruse the entire evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the prosecution as well as the respective parties, which clearly suggests that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court below, where on the basis of overwhelming evidence adduced on record, learned trial Court came to conclusion that the present petitioner-accused is guilty of having committed offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP- 10 -
13. Close scrutiny of the evidence available on record clearly suggests that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond .
reasonable doubt. PW1 Tilak Raj, the complainant stated that on 20.6.2004, he along with his wife, children and his friend Surinder Singh PW5 and his family, was coming from Samba to Dalhousie in Maruti Car.
When they reached near Jarai at about 4:00 pm, a HRTC bus came in of high speed and struck against his car on the wrong side, as a result of which, persons travelling in the Maruti Car sustained injuries. He categorically stated that accident took place due to fault of bus driver rt In his cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot identify the bus driver but self stated that he had seen the driver afterwards. PW1 admitted that they were eight persons in the car, out of them, four were children. He admitted that only four passengers can sit in a Maruti Car.
He denied the suggestion that the bus was not in high speed and he also denied the suggestion that bus was not on wrong side and the accident took place as his car was over loaded and he was deposing falsely.
14. PW4 Suman, wife of the Complainant (PW1), who was also traveling in the car corroborated the version put forth by the PW1. She categorically stated that bus came from a wrong side and struck against the car, as a result of which they suffered injuries. She also identified the driver of the bus in the Court. In her cross-examination, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP
- 11 -
PW4 denied the suggestion put to her that car was being driven in speed of 80 kmph. She specifically denied the suggestion that false .
case has been made against the petitioner-accused with a view to take benefit of insurance claim.
15. PW5 Surinder Singh, who was also traveling in the Car also corroborated the versions put forth on behalf of PW1 and PW4. He of categorically stated that when they reached near Nainikhad at about 3/4:00pm, a Govt. bus came in high speed and struck against their car from the driver side and all the occupants sustained minor/simple rt injuries. In his cross examination, he categorically denied the suggestion that car was being driven in high speed. He denied the suggestion put to him by the defence that govt. bus was not in high speed. He also denied the suggestion put to him that they filed this case in order to avail the insurance claim. He also stated that there were 30-40 passengers in the bus. Aforesaid witness also denied the suggestion that bus driver was not driving the bus in high speed and bus driver was on his own side.
16. PW2 Sarwan Kumar, Conductor of the Bus, stated that they were on Bharmour-Pathankot route with bus in question. He further stated that when they reached near Nainikhad, they met with an accident. He stated that bus was being driven by the accused and at that relevant time, about 52 passengers were in the bus. He stated that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP
- 12 -
he was sitting on the front seat of the bus and the vehicle was being driven conveniently by the driver. He also stated that bus was in normal .
speed. He showed ignorance regarding the occupants of the car.
17. PWs No. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 are formal witnesses and may not be relevant while deciding this petition.
18. PW8 Tarsem, mechanically examined both the vehicles of and proved on record mechanical reports Exts.PW8/A and PW8/B. He specifically stated that there was no mechanical fault in the bus as well as in the car. rt
19. PW12 Head Constable Surjeet Singh, the Investigating Officer, stated that on 20.6.2004, he along with officials was present at Nainikhad bazaar, wherein the complainant Tilak Raj made a statement Ext.PW1/A, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. In his cross-
examination, he stated that bus was going from Chamba to Pathankot.
He admitted that there was no date on the duty roster and expressed inability to say that in photographs Ext.PW12/C5, a truck was shown parked in front of the vehicle. He also stated that there are no tyre marks having been shown in the photographs Exts. PW12/C7, PW12/C6 and PW12/C3. He denied that accident did not take place due to the negligence of the accused.
20. Conjoint reading of aforesaid PWs clearly suggests that on 20.6.2004 the complainant and other occupants of the Car suffered ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP
- 13 -
minor/simple injuries due to the collusion /accident with the bus. They unequivocally stated that bus being driven by the petitioner accused .
came on wrong side in high speed leaving no sufficient space for the car coming from the opposite side and hit the Car, as a result of which, occupants in the car suffered simple injuries
21. Minute perusal of the version put forth on behalf of PWs of clearly suggests that all the PWs have been very very candid, specific and consistent and straightforward while narrating the sequence of event occurred at the time of accident. Perusal of cross-examination rt conducted on the prosecution witnesses clearly suggests that defence was not able to shatter their testimony which otherwise appears to be trustworthy. All the aforesaid PWs have stated that bus at that time was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver in high speed.
Conductor of bus ,PW2 himself admitted the accident and stated that the bus was in normal speed but there is nothing in his statement, from where it could be inferred that at that relevant time, Maruti Car was on wrong side and was being driven in high speed. Similarly, there is no explanation on his part regarding cause of accident; rather, careful perusal of statement of PW2, nowhere suggests that driver of the bus was not at fault. If the version of PW2 is taken to be true, wherein he stated that at that time 52 passengers were sitting in the bus, it is not understood that why persons sitting in the bus were not cited as ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP
- 14 -
defence witnesses by the petitioner-accused to substantiate his contention/argument that bus was being driven at normal speed at that .
relevant time.
22. After carefully examining the entire evidence, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Perusal of the depositions made by of PW1 Tilak Raj, PW2 Sarwan Kumar and PW5 Surinder Singh, leaves no doubt in the mind of the court that at that relevant time, bus was being driven in high speed, as a result of which, it dashed against the car on rt the wrong side of the road. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that aforesaid PWs have corroborated the version of each other in their statements and in cross-examination, defence could not extract anything contrary to what they stated in their examination-in-chief.
Whereas PW2 Swaran Kumar, who was conductor of the bus stated that he was sitting on the front seat of the bus but interestingly, he did not state anything qua the fault, if any, of the driver of the car. He simply stated that bus was in normal speed but he nowhere stated that there was no fault, if any, of the driver of the bus at the time of the alleged accident. Hence, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the Courts below, whereby they came to conclusion that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP
- 15 -
of the bus driver, and as such, present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
.
23. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner-
accused prayed that accused may be given the benefit of probation under Section 4(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 keeping in view his being first offender. Mr. Chaudhary, also stated that mitigating of circumstance in this case is that approximately, more than 14 years have passed after happening of that incident and six years have been passed after passing of the judgment of conviction dated 29.7.2010. The rt accused petitioner has already suffered much agony during the pendency of the appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division Chamba (H.P.), as well as in High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In support of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Yudhbir Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh 1998(1)S.L.J. 58, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. The only mitigating circumstance that appears to be there is that the time gap of about six years between the date of occurrence as well as the date of decision of this revision petitioner. During this entire period sword of present case looming over the head of the petitioner was always there. That being so, this court is of the view that instead of sending the petitioner to jail as ordered by the courts below, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to keep peace and to be of good behavior for a period of one year from the date of execution of the bond before the court below as well as not to commit any such offence. In addition to being given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP
- 16 -
petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each to PWs Baldev Singh and Dilbagh Singh injured as compensation. Shri R.K. Gautam submitted that this amount of compensation be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31.8.1997, who will thereafter pay the same to said persons."
.
24. In this regard, reliance is also placed upon Hon'ble Apex Court judgment Ramesh Kumar @ Babla versus State of Punjab 2016 AIR (SC) 2858, wherein it has been held as under:
of "7. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part by converting appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC. On the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that the occurrence took place in 1997. In his statement under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure the appellant gave his age in 2002 as 36 years. He claimed that he and others went to the place rt of occurrence on getting information that his brother Sanjay Kumar was assaulted by Ramesh Kumar (Complainant). He brought his brother to Police Station and lodged a report. As noticed by trial court, parties are involved in civil as well as criminal litigation from before. High Court has noted that appellant, as per custody certificate, is not involved in any other case. In such circumstances, it is not deemed necessary to send the appellant immediately to Jail custody after about 19 years of the occurrence when he appears to be 50 years of age and fully settled in life.
8. In view of aforesaid, in our view the ends of justice would be met by granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant.
We order accordingly and direct that the appellant be released on executing appropriate bond before the trial court to appear and receive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year when called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour."
25. The reliance is also placed upon Hon'ble Apex Court judgment Hari Kishan and State of Haryana versus Sukhbir Singh 1988 AIR (SC) 2127, wherein it has been held as under:
"8. The question next to be considered is whether the accused are entitled to the benefit of probation of good conduct? We gave our anxious consideration to the contentions urged by counsel. We are of opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in this regard also. Many offenders are not dangerous criminals but are weak characters or who have surrendered to temptation or provocation. In placing such type of offenders, on probation, the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP
- 17 -
Court encourages their own sense of responsibility for their future and protect them from the stigma and possible contamination of prison. In this case, the High Court has observed that there was no previous history of enmity between the parties and the occurrence was an outcome of a sudden flare up. These are not showing to be .
incorrect. We have already said that the accused had no intention to commit murder of any person. Therefore, the extension of benefit of the beneficial legislation applicable to the first offenders cannot be said to be inappropriate.
9. This takes us to, the third questions which we have formulated earlier in this judgments. The High Court has directed each of the respondents to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation to Joginder. The High Court has not referred to any provision of law in support of the order of compensation. But that can be traced to section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code Section 357, leaving aside the unnecessary, provides:-
"357. Order to pay compensation:
(1) When a court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the rt Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied-
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a civil Court;
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation. Such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been sentenced.
(4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its power of revision.
(5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this Section.
11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP
- 18 -
installments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default."
26. In view of the aforesaid law as well as submissions having .
been made by Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the present petitioner-accused can be granted benefit of Section 4 of of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 subject to payment of adequate compensation which would be determined after the receipt of the rt report of Probation Officer.
27. Accordingly, Registry is directed to call for the report of the Probation Officer, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. within six weeks.
Registry to list this matter on 12th December, 2016.
6th September, 2016 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:10:41 :::HCHP