(1.) By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgement and order dated 24.02.1987 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 402 of 1985 (State Vs. Naresh Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.205/1984, Police Station- Fazalganj, District- Kanpur, whereby the appellant- Tunchi @ Rajendra Yadav- has been found guilty for the offence- under Sections 148 and 324 IPC, and given benefit of provisions of Probation of First Offender Act and directed him to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of 3 years. So far as the appellant 2 to 6 are concerned, they have also been found guilty and given the same benefit directing them to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of 2 years. Trial court further directed all of them to furnish bond for Rs.4000/- each and a personal bond of the like amount.
(2.) Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record of this appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after going through the judgement, he is of the view that in so far conviction part of the judgement and order impugned dated 24.02.1987 is concerned, the same is not being assailed and the claim is relinquished. However, on the point of quantum of sentence, he adds that initially instead of sentencing the appellant under various Sections of charge framed against them, the court directed them to keep peace and good behaviour for the aforesaid period and for that purpose asked them to furnish personal bond along with two sureties each for Rs.4000/- before the District Probation Officer, Kanpur. He submits that period prescribed for keep peace and good behaviour ought to have been restricted to one year and the amount for sureties for keeping peace and good behaviour ought to have been reduced to Rs.2000/-. However, he further submitted that in this case appellants have maintained good behaviour and kept peace till now, and no adverse information/report from any corner has been received against them either by the trial court or from the side of the State, which may show that appellants ever acted in violation of the direction and the mandate of the trial court and they were not of good behaviour and they violated term for keeping peace. Learned counsel claims that a mild view ought to have been taken for submission raised by the appellant and benefit of probation ought to have been given to the accused, then the period stipulated and the bond sought for the same, was bit harsh, which ought to have been reduced and confined to the extent of one year and for Rs.2000/-.