CRR/374/2023 of SUKHPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER on 10 September 2026

::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(270) CRR-374-2023 (O & M) Reserved on :07.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2026 Date of Uploading : 11.09.2026 Sukhpal Singh ... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Akash Khurcha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI,

J. (Oral)

The prayer in this petition is for setting aside the judgment dated 10.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mansa whereby while upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Budhlada, dated 14.02.2019, the accused- respondent No.2 has been ordered to be released on probation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused/respondent No.2, namely, Jagtar Singh son of Malkiat Singh alongwith his co-accused, namely, Malkeet Singh son of Jangir Singh, Mandar Singh son of Jangir Singh and Shinder Kaur wife of Malkeet Singh faced Trial in a case FIR No.67 dated 20.07.2015 under Sections 324, 34 IPC, Police Station Boha.

3. On conclusion of the Trial and on the basis of the evidence led, co-accused Malkeet Singh, Mandar Singh and Shinder Kaur came to be acquitted whereas accused-respondent No.2/Jagtar Singh came to be convicted vide a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2019 as under:-

::2:: Name of the Convict Under Section Sentence Jagtar Singh 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 03 years and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 06 months.

4. In an appeal filed by the aforementioned accused-respondent No.2, vide judgment dated 10.11.2022, the Sessions Judge, Mansa, upheld his conviction but modified the order of sentence to the extent that he (respondent No.2) was released on probation under Section 4(i) of the Probation of Offender’s Act for a period of 06 months on his furnishing bond of good behaviour in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, with an undertaking that he would not indulge in any crime during the period of probation and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant- petitioner/Sukhpal Singh as compensation on account of the injuries caused to him.

4. Against the aforementioned judgment, the complainant- petitioner/Sukhpal Singh has preferred the present revision petition (CRR- 374-2023) challenging the granting of probation to the accused-respondent No. 2.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner contends that the Sessions Judge, Mansa has wrongly released the respondent No.2 on probation despite the fact that he alongwith his co-accused assaulted the complainant-petitioner and caused injuries. Further, only a meagre amount has been paid on account of compensation for the injuries suffered by him (petitioner). Therefore, his sentence ought to be enhanced from the grant of probation to the awarding of sentence of imprisonment.

::3::

6. The learned counsel for the State submits that the period of probation granted to the respondents No.2 i.e. 06 months has already been elapsed. Therefore, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

8. This Court in Rajinder Singh Versus State of Haryana & others passed in CRM-M-249-2013 dated 27.08.2018, held as under:- “The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal is dated 27.10.2012, thus, respondent No.2 and 3 have already undergone sentence of probation imposed upon them and, therefore, no reason arises for me to go into the legality or propriety of the impugned judgment. The present petition stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.”

9. In the present case, the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mansa is dated 10.11.2022 and therefore, the accused-respondent No.2, namely, Jagtar Singh son of Malkiat Singh has already undergone the sentence of probation imposed upon him. Therefore, there is no requirement for this Court to go into the legality or propriety of the impugned judgment.

10. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application(s), if any. ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE September 10, 2026 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No