Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurlabh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 December, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Revision No.1987 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.1987 of 2006
Date of decision: 05.12.2013.
Gurlabh Singh ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent - State.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 19/20.07.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur and judgment dated 23.03.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Sangrur, whereby, the petitioner has been released on probation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various arguments like nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he has falsely been implicated in the case by planting false recovery, which is violation of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. There are serious discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was released on Rani Neetu 2013.12.09 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1987 of 2006 2 probation under Probation of Offenders Act subject to furnishing probation bonds in the sum of `5,000/- for six months subject to condition that accused would appear and undergo sentence during the said period of six months on calling to do so by the Court and will keep peace and good behaviour and will not repeat any such act in future. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is a govt. employee and he has never committed any such offence and keeping in view his past conduct and evidence on record, he should have been acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Aitha Chander Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1981 SCC 17.
Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the judgments of both the Courts below.
The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in service of Police and has been released on probation.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Aitha Chander Rao's case (supra), which is reproduced as under: -
"This appeal by special leave is directed against Rani Neetu 2013.12.09 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1987 of 2006 3 the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code for 2 years' RI and a fine of Rs.500. After having gone through the judgment of the courts below, we do not find any reason to interfere with the merits of the appeal. The only question that may be considered is if it is a proper case in which the appellant may be released on probation. The Sessions Judge had found that there was some amount of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case we think it is eminently a fit case in which the appellant may be released on probation. We therefore suspend the sentence of imprisonment only maintaining the fine imposed on the appellant and instead of release him on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year and if he violates any condition of the bond, he may be called upon to surrender and serve the remaining part of the sentence. Out of the fine of Rs.500, the entire amount shall be paid as compensation to the widow and legal heirs of the deceased. Rani Neetu 2013.12.09 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1987 of 2006 4
As the appellant has been released on probation, this may not affect his service career in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations."
It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is also of similar nature and that release on probation is going to affect his service career.
Accordingly, since the petitioner has been released on probation, it may not affect his service career in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
The present revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
05.12.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu JUDGE
Rani Neetu
2013.12.09 11:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh