LUXMI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners herein were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, vide his judgment dated 30th March, 2001 in Criminal Case No. 253 11/99 for committing offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ each. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala, vide his judgment dated 30th August, 2005 even though upheld the conviction but modified the sentence by doing away with the sentence of imprisonment altogether and retaining only that part of the sentence whereby the fine was imposed. In addition, the learned Appeal Court also ordered the petitioners to pay Rs.' 5,000/ each by way of compensation to the complainant. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 30th August, 2005 the petitioners have filed the present revision in this Court, which was taken up for consideration by the Court for the first time on 9th January, 2006.

(2.) THIS Court in the order passed on 9th January, 2006 upheld the finding of "guilty" qua all the petitioners because this Court found that both the Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence correctly found the petitioners guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC. The petition filed by the petitioners accordingly was dismissed by this Court vide the aforesaid order dated 9th January, 2006.

(3.) MR . Maniktala, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners even though admitted that Section 325, IPC does lay down as a mandatory and binding legal requirement that any person convicted under Section 325 is bound to receive an appropriate sentence of imprisonment of either description, has submitted that the occurrence being very old and not of a very serious nature, while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I should not interfere with the order under challenge in this petition. He has relied upon two Single Bench judgments of Patna High Court in the case of Ramchander Rai and and Ors. v. Ram Betas Tewari reported in AIR 1933 Patna 179 and Punjab High Court in the case of The State v. Kangan Suba Gujjar . Alternatively Mr. Maniktala has submitted that I should invoke Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and grant the benefit of this provision to the petitioners.