LAWS(P&H)-2011-8-403

SWARAN KAUR Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND ORS

Decided On August 26, 2011
SWARAN KAUR Appellant
V/S
BALBIR SINGH AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial Court vide judgment dated 03.02.2004 had convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents (hereinafter referred to as ''the respondents'') under Sections 323, 342, 506, 34 IPC. However, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2008 while dismissing the appeal, directed the respondents to be released on probation on furnishing of personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety each in the like amount, undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour and to come present to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so. However, they were directed to pay Rs.1500/- each as costs of proceedings, out of which an amount of Rs.2000/- was to be paid as compensation to the complainant-injured Swaran Kaur.

(2.) No argument has been advanced with regard to the order of conviction, but the learned counsel has contended that the order of probation could not be passed by the Appellate Court without calling for the report of the Probation Officer, therefore, the order extending the benefit of probation was not valid. In order to support this argument, he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case M.C.D. Vs. State of Delhi and another, 2005 3 RCR(Cri) 13.

(3.) The proposition of law, as involved in M.C.D''s case , is not disputed, but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The offences involved in the case are under Sections 323, 342 and 506/34 IPC, which are petty in nature. Even the offence under Section 323 IPC is non-cognizable. Furthermore, the probation bonds were furnished on 10.12.2008, vide which the respondents were bound to remain of good conduct for one year. The said period of bonds has now expired. No such complaint has been brought forth, if they ever committed the breach of conditions of the bonds and they did not remain of good conduct. Therefore, it would not be proper to disturb the impugned judgment regarding exercise of this judicial discretion for extending the benefit of probation to the respondents at this stage.