RAM RATTAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In present case, on a complaint of petitioner, respondent No. 2 was convicted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for different terms under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC.

(2.) Assailing the judgment passed by the trial Court, complainant/petitioner had filed an appeal in the Sessions Court for enhancement of sentence, whereas respondent No. 2 had assailed the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by filing a separate appeal. Both the appeals have been partly allowed by learned Sessions Judge by a common judgment dated 18.7.2018 and instead of substantial sentence, respondent has been released on probation by extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as the "Act" in short) and has been directed to pay compensation to injured/complainant amounting to Rs.25,000/-. This judgment is under challenge in present Revision Petition.

(3.) On registration of Criminal Revision, after condonation of delay in filing the same, respondents had raised the question of maintainability of composite Revision Petition, assailing the impugned common judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge in two appeals on two grounds i.e. (a) that composite petition/appeal against a common judgment passed in two appeals, is not maintainable and for agitating the cause of each appeal, a separate Revision Petition or Appeal as the case may be, is required to be preferred, (b) that there is a complete scheme provided under the Act to assail the extension of benefits thereof by filing an appeal, therefore, Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against the extension of benefit of the Act.