VASUDEV Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 353, 336 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short) vide judgment dated 10.2.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 353 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 336 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 11.7.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 353 and 506 IPC only and was sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 353 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the complainant as well as the petitioner were public servants and the occurrence had taken place on a trivial issue. Now the parties have arrived at a compromise. Learned counsel, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 353 and 506 IPC, but has submitted that the petitioner be ordered to be released on probation so that he may not lose his job.

(3.) The complainant is also present in the Court in person and has admitted the factum of compromise between the parties and has stated that he has no objection if the petitioner is given the benefit of probation.