Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 November, 2023
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148851
2023:PHHC:148851
CRR-3155-2016 (O&M) -1-
(254) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3155-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.11.2023
JASKARAN SINGH
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
for respondent No.1.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The brief facts of the case are that two persons namely, Harnek
Singh son of Gurnam Singh (respondent No.1) and Beant Singh son of
Harnek Singh (respondent No.2) were convicted in FIR No.228 dated
15.12.2009 under Sections 325/323/34 IPC Police Station Sadar Abohar and
sentenced as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine In default of
fine
Sections 325/34 IPC RI 01 year each Rs.2000/- RI 03 years
each
Sections 323/34 IPC SI 06 months each Rs.500/- SI 01 month
each
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. In an appeal filed by the aforementioned accused, vide judgment
dated 27.04.2016 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka upheld the
conviction but released them on probation on account of good conduct on
furnishing of personal probation bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety in the like amount with an undertaking therein to maintain peace and
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148851
2023:PHHC:148851
CRR-3155-2016 (O&M) -2-
good behaviour for a period of 06 months and not to commit any offence in
future and further to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon
to do so. The convicts were further directed to pay compensation to the
complainant-Jaskaran Singh amounting to Rs.10,000/- each. The amount of
compensation also stood deposited. Personal probation bonds and surety
bonds were also furnished.
3. Against the aforementioned judgment, the complainant-Jaskaran
Singh preferred this revision petition challenging the granting of probation to
respondent Nos.2 & 3 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
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 & 3 be enhanced
from grant of probation to the awarding of sentence of imprisonment.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148851
2023:PHHC:148851
CRR-3155-2016 (O&M) -3-
The present petition stands disposed of as having been
rendered infructuous."
8. In the present case, the judgment of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fazilka is dated 27.04.2016 and therefore, the respondent
Nos.2 & 3 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.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having
been rendered infructuous.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
21.11.2023
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148851
3 of 3
