CIVIL APPEAL 1413 of 2000 on 25 August 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.

Criminal Revision No.1413 of 2000Date of Decision: 16 - 2 - 2010

Ajay Dahiya

.....Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA***

Present:Mr.P.K.Chugh, Advocatefor the petitioner.

Ms.Hemlata Balhara, AAG, Haryana.

***

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

Ajay Dahiya was named as accused in case FIR No.141 dated26.8.2001 registered at Police Station Kundli under Sections 354/342 IPC.

The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepatreleased the petitioner on probation for one year as prescribed under Section360 Cr.P.C and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He wasdirected to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one suretyin the like amount for one year. He was asked to appear and receive thesentence as and when called upon by the Court with a rider that during theperiod of probation, accused shall maintain peace and good behaviour.

Accused-petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court

found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.

A perusal of Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act,1958 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act') shows that an appeal shall lieagainst the order passed under Sections 3 or 4 of the Act passed by anyCourt trying the offender to the Court to which ordinarily appeals lie fromthe sentences of the former court. In exercise of powers of revision, suchorder of probation can be set aside and order of sentence can be passedagainst the offender according to law.

The FIR Ex.PW2/B was registered on the statement made bySeema Dahiya daughter of Attar Singh. The FIR was registered on the basisof written complaint submitted by Seema Dahiya. It was stated in thecomplaint that complainant was aged 17 years and was a student of 12[th]class. On 25.8.2001 at about 8.30 P.M., she was proceeding towards thehouse of her uncle Balbir (elder brother of the father) to give vegetableprepared in her house. There was no electricity in the village. Thepetitioner who was standing in front of the house caught hold of thecomplainant and dragged her inside the house in order to outrage hermodesty. Complainant raised alarm. Vijay son of Kitab Singh, Pappu sonof Sher Singh and Inder son of Kamal Singh were attracted at the spot andrescued the complainant from the hands of the accused. The cause ofgrudge stated was that there was some dispute regarding some moneytransaction between father of the complainant and the accused. In thesupplementary statement, complainant had stated that accused caught holdof her hand and started moving his hand over the chest of the complainant.

Prosecution examined Narender as PW1 and Ram Kumar ASI,Police Post Bahalgarh, Investigating Officer as PW2 and complainant

Seema appeared as PW3. Prosecution also proved various documents.

Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. A plea wasraised by the accused that complaint filed by the complainant was a counter-blast to the litigation pending between the accused and father of thecomplainant and the FIR was lodged to pressurise the accused to withdrawthe money suit. Accused had examined six witnesses. He himself appearedas DW6.

Narender PW1 had not supported the prosecution version andhe was declared hostile. However, Seema PW3 testified against thepetitioner. Two Courts below have placed implicit reliance on hertestimony. The trial Court formulated a view that statement of PW1Narender who was declared hostile can only be corroborative evidence tothe extent that on 26.8.2001 at 7.00/8.00 P.M. some incident did take placein the street. The Appellate Court below had affirmed the finding of thetrial Court. Petitioner was released on probation on 27.9.2002. The periodof probation had come to an end. The trial Court released the petitioner onprobation for good conduct for one year as provided under Section 360Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Act. Probation of Offenders Act is a specialAct. Therefore, Section 360 Cr.P.C. will not be applicable and probationgranted to the petitioner is to be construed under Section 4 of the Act. Theprovisions of Section 12 of the Act state that any person who has beenfound guilty of an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions ofSection 3 or Section 4 of the Act shall not suffer from any disqualificationattached to a conviction of offence under such law. Therefore, needless tosay that in view of provisions of Section 12 of the Act, conviction of the petitioner shall not cause any disqualification.

Subject to aforesaid, the present revision petition is disposed of.

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )February 16, 2010. JUDGE

RC