MaIn Pal Vs. Jai Lal and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059465
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-01-2013
AppellantMaIn Pal
RespondentJai Lal and Another
Excerpt:
crr no.3174 o”1. .in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh criminal revision no.3174 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision : march 1st, 2013 main pal ...petitioner versus jai lal and another ...respondent coram : hon'ble mr.justice vijender singh malik 1 whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2.whether to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3.whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present mr.rahul vats, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.k.s.chahal, advocate, for respondent no.1. mr.sagar deswal, aag, haryana, for the state. vijender singh malik, j. in a complaint case brought by main pal, the petitioner against jai lal, respondent no.1 and others for an offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 506 read with section 34 ipc and section 3(i) and (x) of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989, judicial magistrate ist class, panchkula held jai lal guilty for an offence punishable under section 323 ipc vide judgment dated 20.10.2010 and awarded him sentence of rigourous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of ` 1000/- for the offence vide order on sentence of the same date. on appeal, learned additional sessions crr no.3174 o”2. .judge, panchkula, vide judgment dated 9.7.2012, has partly accepted the appeal. while upholding the conviction of jai lal for the offence punishable under section 323 ipc, learned additional sessions judge has ordered release of jai lal on probation of good conduct. the release of jai lal on probation is challenged by main pal by way of this revision petition. learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a police official and respondent no.1, jai lal is also a police official. according to him, they are responsible persons and the behaviour attributed to jai lal is not becoming of a police official. according to him, learned trial court was fully justified in awarding sentence to jai lal and learned additional sessions judge was not justified in any manner in partly accepting the appeal and ordering jai lal to be released on probation of good conduct. i do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission. the two police officials were posted at the same place and before jai lal had hit him, main pal, the petitioner caused some jarring sounds he had raised the volume of the television to a very high and then opened the door of the room in which jai lal was there with a kick of his foot on the plank of the door. it appears that those acts enraged jai lal. leaving aside the reasons for jai lal to be angry with main pal, it is a fact that jai lal has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 323 ipc. he is, therefore, not convicted for a serious offence. the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 1999 and more than 14 years have passed since that date. there is no past history of involvement of jai lal in any such type of case. he has crr no.3174 o”3. .unblemished record of service and all these circumstances were sufficient for learned additional sessions judge to be persuaded to partly accept the appeal and to order release of respondent no.1, jai lal on probation of good conduct. consequently, i find no good ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of learned additional sessions judge, panchkula granting concession of probation to jai lal. the revision petition lacks in merits and is, therefore, dismissed. (vijender singh malik) judge march 1st, 2013 som
Judgment:

CRR No.3174 o”

1. .IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.3174 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 1st, 2013 Main Pal ...Petitioner Versus Jai Lal and another ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.K.S.Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State.

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

In a complaint case brought by Main Pal, the petitioner against Jai Lal, respondent No.1 and others for an offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 506 read with section 34 IPC and section 3(i) and (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula held Jai Lal guilty for an offence punishable under section 323 IPC vide judgment dated 20.10.2010 and awarded him sentence of rigourous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of ` 1000/- for the offence vide order on sentence of the same date.

On appeal, learned Additional Sessions CRR No.3174 o”

2. .Judge, Panchkula, vide judgment dated 9.7.2012, has partly accepted the appeal.

While upholding the conviction of Jai Lal for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC, learned Additional Sessions Judge has ordered release of Jai Lal on probation of good conduct.

The release of Jai Lal on probation is challenged by Main Pal by way of this revision petition.

Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a police official and respondent No.1, Jai Lal is also a police official.

According to him, they are responsible persons and the behaviour attributed to Jai Lal is not becoming of a police official.

According to him, learned trial court was fully justified in awarding sentence to Jai Lal and learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in any manner in partly accepting the appeal and ordering Jai Lal to be released on probation of good conduct.

I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission.

The two police officials were posted at the same place and before Jai Lal had hit him, Main Pal, the petitioner caused some jarring sounds He had raised the volume of the television to a very high and then opened the door of the room in which Jai Lal was there with a kick of his foot on the plank of the door.

It appears that those acts enraged Jai Lal.

Leaving aside the reasons for Jai Lal to be angry with Main Pal, it is a fact that Jai Lal has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 323 IPC.

He is, therefore, not convicted for a serious offence.

The offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 1999 and more than 14 years have passed since that date.

There is no past history of involvement of Jai Lal in any such type of case.

He has CRR No.3174 o”

3. .unblemished record of service and all these circumstances were sufficient for learned Additional Sessions Judge to be persuaded to partly accept the appeal and to order release of respondent No.1, Jai Lal on probation of good conduct.

Consequently, I find no good ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula granting concession of probation to Jai Lal.

The revision petition lacks in merits and is, therefore, dismissed.

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE March 1st, 2013 som