SURJEET KAUR Vs. PROBATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since on the last date of hearing, petitioner and her son were arguing contrary to the legislatively approved concept of probation, this Court had asked the petitioner as to whether she would be willing to engage a legal aid lawyer from the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Though on the last date of hearing, petitioner was agreeable, but it seems that she did not appear before the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee as directed by this Court. In fact, in pursuance to the last order, Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee enters appearance. However, petitioner, who is personally present in Court along with her son, states that she has not engaged him and would like only her son to argue the matter.

(2.) Keeping in view the aforesaid, Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate is discharged from the case and petitioner and her son have been heard.

(3.) Present revision petition has been filed by the complainant against order dated 17 th July, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby appeal filed against order dated 27 th February, 2012 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate was dismissed. The Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 27 th February, 2012 has released the respondent No.2 on probation after convicting her under Sections 323 and 506 Part I IPC.