MAN SINGH Vs. BAJRANG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petitioner has been filed against the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nerta July 18, 1974 by which he while confirming the finding of conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences under sections 325 and 323, Indian Penal Code given by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Nawa set aside the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to under go six months simple imprisonment, released him by giving benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the accused does not fall within the ambit of section 6, and it appeared that the benefit has been given under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and, therefore, it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to give reasons for setting aside the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that in view of injuries sustained by the petitioner the amount of compensation of Rs. 200.00 is not sufficient, and therefore, the amount of compensation may be increased.

(3.) I have carefully examined the record of the case. The learned Sessions Judge while extending benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act has observed that this is the first offence of the accused and in my opinion when the accused had no previous conviction at his credit and the quarrel appears to have taken place suddenly and without there being any proof of any previous enmity the learned Sessions Judge has rightly used his discretion in extending the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Magistrate had ordered for payment of Rs. 200.00 to the complainant out of the amount of fine. The learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the sentence of fine also ordered under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act for payment of compensation of Rs. 200.00. In my opinion, in the circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation ordered to be paid is sufficient and the finding of the learned Sessions Judge calls for no interference. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. Revision dismissed.