Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 3 October, 2023
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128123
2023:PHHC:128123
CRR-206-2018 -1-
(243) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-206-2018
Date of Decision: 03.10.2023
HARBANS LAL
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 to 6.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The brief facts of the case are that fifteen persons namely, Amrik Singh-respondent No.2 (CRR-1034-2018), Gurmit Singh-respondent No.3 (CRR-1034-2018), Sunil Kumar @ Bobby-respondent No.4 (CRR-1034- 2018), Harkrishan Lal-respondent No.5 (CRR-1034-2018), Om Parkash- respondent No.6 (CRR-1034-2018), Pawan Kumar-respondent No.7 (CRR- 1034-2018), Kewal Krishan-respondent No.8 (CRR-1034-2018), Surinder Singh @ Thind-respondent No.9 (CRR-1034-2018), Des Raj-respondent No.2 (CRR-322-2018), Harjinder Singh-respondent No.2 (CRR-206-2018), Binder Singh-respondent No.3 (CRR-206-2018), Balkar Chand-respondent No.4 (CRR-206-2018), Dilbagh Singh-respondent No.5 (CRR-206-2018) and Kartar Singh-respondent No.6 (CRR-206-2018) were convicted in FIR No.76 dated 26.04.2010 under Sections 452, 201, 336, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 27, 54, 59 of Arms, Police Station Guruhar Sahai and sentenced as under:-
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2023 02:20:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128123 2023:PHHC:128123 CRR-206-2018 -2- Name of Offence RI Fine In default of accused fine Amrik 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Singh 148IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Gurmit 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Singh 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Sunil 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Kumar 148 IPC 8 months 336 IPC 6 months Des Raj 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Harjinder 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Singh 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Binder 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Singh 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Balkar 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Chand 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Dilbagh 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Singh 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Kartar 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Singh 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Harkrishan 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Lal 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Om Parkash 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Pawan 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Kumar 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Kewar 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Krishan 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months Jangir 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Chand 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months
2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2023 02:20:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128123 2023:PHHC:128123 CRR-206-2018 -3- Surinder 452 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days Singh 148 IPC 8 months 336/149 IPC 6 months All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Three separate appeals were preferred before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur. The petitioner preferred appeal No.04 of 2016. Vide judgment dated 26.09.2017, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur disposed of all the three appeals vide a common order. While the conviction was upheld, the respondents were ordered to be released on probation on furnishing requisite bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount with an undertaking to appear and receive the sentence and when called within a period of 06 months and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The amount of fine of Rs.500/- each (4500/- in all) already deposited by the accused in the Trial Court was ordered to be converted into cost of litigation. Out of this amount of Rs.4500/- i.e. 500/- each deposited by these nine convicts in the Trial Court an amount of Rs.3000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant-Harbans Lal as compensation. The convicts were to furnish requisite probation bonds within a period of 01 month.
3. Against the aforementioned judgment, the complainant-Harbans Lal preferred this revision petition challenging the granting of probation to respondent Nos.2 to 6 and seeking enhancement of sentence including sentence of imprisonment to be awarded.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order of probation could only have been passed after receipt of report from Probation 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2023 02:20:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128123 2023:PHHC:128123 CRR-206-2018 -4- Officer. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as MCD Versus State of Delhi and another, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 13.
5. The learned counsel for the State has supported the case of the petitioner contending that the sentence of respondent Nos.2 to 6 be enhanced from grant of probation to the awarding of sentence of imprisonment.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Rajinder Singh Versus State of Haryana & others passed in CRM-M-249-2013 dated 27.08.2018 to contend that once the probation period is over the present petition has been rendered infructuous.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
8. This Court in Rajinder Singh Versus State of Haryana & others passed in CRM-M-249-2013 dated 27.08.2018, held as under:-
"The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal is dated 27.10.2012, thus, respondent No.2 and 3 have already undergone sentence of probation imposed upon them and, therefore, no reason arises for me to go into the legality or propriety of the impugned judgment.
The present petition stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous."
9. In the present case, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur is dated 26.09.2017 and therefore, the respondent Nos.2 to 9 have already undergone the sentence of probation imposed upon them. Therefore, there is no requirement for this Court to go into the legality or propriety of the impugned judgment.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2023 02:20:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128123 2023:PHHC:128123 CRR-206-2018 -5-
10. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 03.10.2023 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128123 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2023 02:20:31 :::