LEHRI AND ORS. Vs. AMAR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS Amar Singh and six others named in the order of the trial Magistrate were convicted on their plea of guilty under Sections 325/149. 323/149 and 148, Indian Penal Code, Instead of sentencing them to imprisonment, the Magistrate, in exercise of his discretion under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, released them on probation of good conduct. Feeling aggrieved Lehri and three others, the injured persons, filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. They have now moved this Court under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, for setting aside the release of the Respondents on probation.

(2.) NOW what is required to be seen is, whether the release of the Respondents on probation ordered by the Magistrate is valid or not The circumstances of the present case are that the seven Respondents and the four members of the complainant -party (the Petitioners in this Court) are neighbours in the town of Rohtak. On the day of the incident, the Petitioners were sitting on cots in front of their house and smoking huqqa. Smt. Karko belonging to the family of the Respondents while returning home objected to the obstruction on the passage caused by the Petitioners. Even when the Petitioners agreed to the removal of the cots, she did not refrain from abusing them. In the meanwhile, the seven Respondents armed with sword, spear and lathis came, attacked and caused them grievous and simple injuries. It is patent that the parties had been living as good neighbours in the past. In other words the existence of any animosity between them is nobody's case. As held by the Magistrate the incident was sudden and in consequence of altercation between Smt. Karko and the Petitioners. Against the character of any of the Respondents, there is no stigma either on record or in the ground of revision. As held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 444, the Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology.

(3.) IN view of the above, no case is made out to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Magistrate. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.