(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners- Gurmukh Singh and Manga Singh against the judgment dated 06.06.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guru Har Sahai, vide which the petitioners have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_663_LAWS(P&H)9_2014_1.html</FRM>
(2.) I need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgments of the learned Courts below and in view of the ultimate prayer of the petitioners seeking for release on probation.
(3.) At the very outset, without challenging the conviction recorded against the petitioners by the courts below, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought benefits of probation towards the petitioners by taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. He has placed reliance upon Pawan Kumar Bansal versus State of Punjab, 2004 2 RCR(Cri) 325, Vijay Kumar Jindal vs. State of Punjab, 2004 2 RCR(Cri) 816, State of Punjab vs. Nasib Singh, 2003 3 RCR(Cri) 304and Hem Raj vs. State of Punjab, 2008 3 RCR(Cri) 475. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the light of Full Bench judgment rendered in Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1980 CurLJ(Civ&Cri) 150, the prescription of minimum sentence is no bar for attracting the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or as a matter of fact Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying heavily on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners deserve a sympathetic hilt with regard to the quantum of sentence. Petitioners have been facing the ordeal of trial and damocle's sword has been hanging on their head for about eight years.