Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Bimal Kumar on 24 January, 2011
Criminal Revision No. 1547 of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1547 of 2005
Date of Decision: 24.1.2011.
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority
.... Petitioner
Versus
Bimal Kumar
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate for
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, for U.T.
None for the respondent.
NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL)
This revision has been filed by Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short 'PUDA') against the judgment dated January 19th, 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Batala, whereby, Bimal Kumar-respondent was directed to be released on probation for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on his furnishing personal bonds for sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for the said period for keeping peace and be of good behaviour to the satisfaction of the Court in a complaint filed by the PUDA against respondent under Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation At, 1995 (for short 'the Act').
2. Allegations, in brief, against the respondent are that he was owner of land bearing khasra No.461, 469, 468 Hadbast No.213 situated in village Faizpur Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur and without obtaining licence, he set up a residential colony by diving the land into plots and sold the same. Accordingly, he was charged under Section 36 of the Act. He pleaded guilty.
3. The solitary submission of the counsel for the Criminal Revision No. 1547 of 2005 2 PUDA is that the sentence imposed upon respondent was inadequate.
4. Keeping in view the accusation against the petitioner and that the object of law is not to punish the offender but also to reclaim, if possible. There is no complaint of any sort against him during the period, he remained on probation and he was not a previous convict.
5. In view of this, trial Court was justified in releasing the respondent on probation. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
24.1.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE