Full Text
Translation output
1-7 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: August 12, 2011 + CO. Revision Petition No. 281/2008
Manoj Tyagi & Ors. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Jagdish Chandra, Advocate
Date of Decision: August 12, 2011 + CO. Revision Petition No. 281/2008
Manoj Tyagi & Ors. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Jagdish Chandra, Advocate
VERSUS
The State (N.C.T.) of Delhi Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel for respondent-
State with SI Manoj Dahiya.
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel for respondent-
State with SI Manoj Dahiya.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to seethe
JUDGMENT
?
To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SUNIL GAUR, I. (Oral)
The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is being invoked by the petitioners who challenge their conviction in FIR No. 650/1997, under Sections 323/324/34 of the
IPC, registered at Police Station Vikas Pun, Delhi, and sentence of
R.I. of 3 months each with fine awarded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court vide impugned order of
17th May, P?1iIsI;! The incident relates to an assault by the petitioners upon the complainant regarding throwing of garbage in the morning of
Cr!. Rev. Pet. No. 28112008 Page 1 2011:DHC:19866
L-01 23.10.1997. Petitioners are said to be the neighbours of the complainant. The injuries sustained by the complainant are of simple nature.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is confining the challenge in this revision petition on the point of sentence, by urging that the first two petitioners are aged 31-32 years and the third petitioner is aged about 55 years. It is urged that the petitioners have faced agony of trial in this case for last about 15 years and fine imposed has been deposited. The prayer made by the petitioner's counsel is for reduction of sentence or in the alternative to release the petitioners on probation. It is pointed out that the petitioners are not involved in any criminal case and are the sole bread earners of their families and the report of the
Probation Officer favours their release on probation, which has been illegally ignored by the courts below.
Heard.
In Suresh Kumar & Others Vs. State 116 (2005) DLT 344, benefit of probation was extended to the accused found guilty of committing the offence under Section 324/325/34 of the IPC as they were found to be not having any criminal antecedents.
Considering the facts and circumstance and taking note of the antecedents of the petitioners, I find that a long period of trial and a little period of imprisonment suffered by the petitioners
Cr!. Rev. Pet. No. 28112008 Page 2 initially i.e. of 6-7 days, as told by petitioners' counsel, has indeed served as a deterrent. It becomes so apparent from the fact that during the past 15 years, petitioners' antecedents have been found to be clean. In this view of the matter, it would not be feasible to send the petitioners behind bars to now serve out the remainder of the sentence of few months and instead thereof, it is considered expedient, to release the petitioners on probation upon executing probation bonds for maintaining good behavior.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of while releasing the petitioners on probation for a period of one year subject to their furnishing probation bond of good behavior in the sum of
10,000/- each along with one surety each in the like amount before the trial court. Remainder of fine (excluding compensation amount) is converted as cost of proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners shall be appearing before the trial court on 25.8.2011 for furnishing the probation bond and in the event of default, petitioners shall be liable to undergo the sentence awarded.
With aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance and report.
August 12, 2011 Cr!. Rev. Pet. No. 28112008 Page 3
To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SUNIL GAUR, I. (Oral)
The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is being invoked by the petitioners who challenge their conviction in FIR No. 650/1997, under Sections 323/324/34 of the
IPC, registered at Police Station Vikas Pun, Delhi, and sentence of
R.I. of 3 months each with fine awarded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court vide impugned order of
17th May, P?1iIsI;! The incident relates to an assault by the petitioners upon the complainant regarding throwing of garbage in the morning of
Cr!. Rev. Pet. No. 28112008 Page 1 2011:DHC:19866
L-01 23.10.1997. Petitioners are said to be the neighbours of the complainant. The injuries sustained by the complainant are of simple nature.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is confining the challenge in this revision petition on the point of sentence, by urging that the first two petitioners are aged 31-32 years and the third petitioner is aged about 55 years. It is urged that the petitioners have faced agony of trial in this case for last about 15 years and fine imposed has been deposited. The prayer made by the petitioner's counsel is for reduction of sentence or in the alternative to release the petitioners on probation. It is pointed out that the petitioners are not involved in any criminal case and are the sole bread earners of their families and the report of the
Probation Officer favours their release on probation, which has been illegally ignored by the courts below.
Heard.
In Suresh Kumar & Others Vs. State 116 (2005) DLT 344, benefit of probation was extended to the accused found guilty of committing the offence under Section 324/325/34 of the IPC as they were found to be not having any criminal antecedents.
Considering the facts and circumstance and taking note of the antecedents of the petitioners, I find that a long period of trial and a little period of imprisonment suffered by the petitioners
Cr!. Rev. Pet. No. 28112008 Page 2 initially i.e. of 6-7 days, as told by petitioners' counsel, has indeed served as a deterrent. It becomes so apparent from the fact that during the past 15 years, petitioners' antecedents have been found to be clean. In this view of the matter, it would not be feasible to send the petitioners behind bars to now serve out the remainder of the sentence of few months and instead thereof, it is considered expedient, to release the petitioners on probation upon executing probation bonds for maintaining good behavior.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of while releasing the petitioners on probation for a period of one year subject to their furnishing probation bond of good behavior in the sum of
10,000/- each along with one surety each in the like amount before the trial court. Remainder of fine (excluding compensation amount) is converted as cost of proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners shall be appearing before the trial court on 25.8.2011 for furnishing the probation bond and in the event of default, petitioners shall be liable to undergo the sentence awarded.
With aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance and report.
August 12, 2011 Cr!. Rev. Pet. No. 28112008 Page 3