SULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried under Section 34 of the Police Act and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 50, in default further simple imprisonment for two days, by the trial Magistrate. The appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence came up before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who came to a finding that since section 34 of the Police Act was not extended to Loharu tehsil which is required under the law, so the conviction of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Police Act could not be sustained. However, he convicted the petitioner under Section 510 of the Indian Penal Code and gave him the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) I have gone through the evidence in the case and find that the prosecution has failed to prove that after being drum the petitioner conducted himself in such a manner as to cause annoyance to any person, which is a necessary ingredient of Section 510 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from this, the notice given to the petitioner was as to why he should not be convicted under Section 34 of the Police Act. It is doubtful whether in the circumstances of the case the conviction of the petitioner could be recorded under Section 510 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently the petitioner is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to him. Order accordingly.