Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh vs Jaspal Singh And Ors. on 30 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(214) CRR-136-2010 (O&M)
Reserved on : 11.03.2026
.2026
Pronounced on : 30.03.2026
03.2026
Uploaded on: 30.03.2026
Prem Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
Jaspal Singh & others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI
Present:- Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate and
Mr.Ekteshwar Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Mr.A.K.Khubbar,
A.K.Khubbar, Addl.A.G., Haryana
Haryana.
RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI,
DIMRI J. :
1. This judgment shall dispose of a Criminal Revision Petition
filed against the judgment dated 27.07.2009 passed by the Learned
Addl.Sessions Judge, Ambala (for brevity, “”Appellate Court”) by which
an appeal filed by the respondents/accused
respondent /accused (for brevity, “accused”) wasdisposed of and the judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2007 was
modified to the extent that the accused-Narinder
Narinder Singh was acq
acquitted
uitted ofthe charge framed against him whereas other accused were ordered to be
released on probation subject to they
the furnishing requisite bonds in the sumof Rs.30,000/-
Rs.30,000/ each with one surety in the like amount each.
2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant
complainant-Prem
Prem Singh has
four brothers, one Ram Pal Singh being youngest of them. All of them
were residing separately. Some land of Prem Singh and his nephew
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -2-
Mangat Singh was comprised in Abadi Deh of Village Rampur situated
near baithak of accused Roop Singh (since deceased) where cowdung
cakes had been stacked and certain wooden logs were also stored. On
28.11.1990 at about 8.30 a.m., Prem Singh and his nephew Mangat Singh
as well as Sunil Kumar had gone to dig a foundation on the said land for
raising a boundary wall. When they started digging the foundation,
accused Jaspal Singh, Roop Singh, Des Raj, Surinder Singh, Nepal Singh,
Krishan and Babli, with Narinder Singh, armed with lathis and gandasis,
came there. They proclaimed that said land belongs to them. Such
proclamation led to exchange of words. In result, Roop Singh got
infuriated and provoked others to teach a lesson to Prem Singh etc. He
inflicted a lathi blow on head of Prem Singh. He then gave its blow on his
forehead. Third blow thereof was given on ear of Prem Singh. Accused
Des Raj gave a lathi blow on right shoulder of Prem Singh whereas the
accused Narinder Singh gave lathi blows on his right shoulder as well as
his right elbow. Accused Surinder Singh gave a lathi blow on his right
hand and another blow thereof on his left ankle. Prem Singh fell down.
Accused Roop Singh gave a lathi blow on his right shoulder whereas
accused Nepal Singh gave lathi blows on his ankle and left elbow.
Accused Jaspal Singh gave a reverse-side blow of gandasi on right hand of
Prem Singh. Said accused also caused injuries to Sunil Kumar and
Mangat Singh. On raising alarm, one Som Nath son of Surat Singh and
Surat Singh as well as Atma Ram came to the spot. They rescued Prem
Singh from the accused. After criminally intimidating Prem Singh, the
accused fled from the spot with their respective weapons. All three injured
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -3-
were taken to hospital. On getting information about admission of injured
to the Civil Hospital, SI Jai Ram etc. reached Civil Hospital, Mullana and
recorded statement of Prem Singh. On its basis, a DDR and then an FIR
was registered on that very date. Investigation was started. Medical
evidence was collected. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On
completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “1973 Code”) was prepared. It was
presented before the concerned Area Magistrate.
3. After complying with the provisions contained in Section 207
of the 1973 Code, the Learned Magistrate, vide order dated 23.10.1998,
charge-sheeted the accused for commission of offences under Section 148
as well as Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “1860 Code”). The accused pleaded not
guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
4. In its evidence, prosecution examined 6 witnesses. It also
proved documents referred to by the Learned Courts below in the
impugned judgment/s.
5. In their respective statements under Section 313 of 1973
Code, the accused denied the incriminating evidence put to them with a
plea of false implication on account of prior enmity. They produced 2
witnesses in their defence. After proving documents Mark-A and Mark-
A2, they closed their evidence.
6. On conclusion of evidence, concerned Area Magistrate heard
the partis on merits of the case. After such hearing, it convicted the
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -4-
accused under Section 148 as well as Sections 323, 325, 506 all read with
Section 149 of 1860 Code. They were accordingly sentenced.
7. Aggrieved of the said conviction and order of sentence, the
accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. Through the
impugned judgment dated 27.07.2009, the Learned Appellate Court
accepted the appeal on behalf of accused Narinder Singh and acquitted
him. However, appeal against conviction of the accused Jaspal Singh,
Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des Raj and Surinder Singh was dismissed.
However, a plea of grant of probation etc. raised on behalf of the said
accused was accepted and they all were ordered to be released on
probation for a period of one year without supervision. Accused Jaspal
Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des Raj and Surinder Singh were also
directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to Prem Singh (complainant).
Amount of fine of Rs.10,000/- already deposited by them before the Trial
Court was converted towards costs of proceedings and amount of fine
deposited by said Narinder Singh was ordered to be refunded to him.
Amount of compensation ordered by the Appellate Court was deposited by
the said accused. Prem Singh had also filed a Revision Petition against the
judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court. It was also accordingly
disposed of. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2009, said
Prem Singh is in revision before this Court.
8. I have heard Shri J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Shri
A.K.Khubbar, Learned Addl.A.G., Haryana, on merits of the Revision
Petition. With their assistance, I have perused photocopies of the record.
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -5-
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that accused
Narinder Singh was illegally and erroneously acquitted through the
impugned judgment. Benefit of probation was wrongly and illegally given
to the remaining 5 accused. They were not at all entitled to such benefit.
Impugned judgment, to the said extent, deserves to be set aside. Accused
Narinder Singh deserves to be convicted/sentenced as ordered by the
Learned Trial Court. Remaining 5 accused were rightly convicted by the
Learned Trial Court. They, therefore, should undergo the imprisonment
imposed by it on them.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6
has argued that in respect of acquittal granted to respondent No.6,
impugned judgment is clear and categoric. Sentence of probation imposed
on respondent Nos.1 to 5 has elapsed. In view thereof, qua them nothing
more survives. Impugned judgment is self-speaking calling for no
interference in revision. It has taken the evidence and law applicable to
the case into consideration. There is no ground to exercise revisional
jurisdiction against it. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the
Revision Petition. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the
report “Jitender Vs. Maan Singh & another” 2025 NCPHHC 9202 and
a judgment dated 10.07.2025 rendered in Criminal Revision No.1413-
2010 titled “Ganesh Dutt Kaushik Vs. State of Haryana & another.
11. Learned Addl. Advocate General agrees that probation period
for which 5 accused were sentenced has expired.
12. After such hearing and perusal, I may state that through the
impugned judgment dated 27.07.2009, the accused Narinder Singh was
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -6-
acquitted of the charges framed against him in the case in question. In
view of such acquittal, if the State was aggrieved of the same, in terms of
Section 378(1) of the 1973 Code, an appeal was maintainable. Said
sub-section is reproduced as under:-
“S. 378 Appeal in case of acquittal :-
1. Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2) and subject
to the provisions of Sub-Sections (3) and (5),
(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court
of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a
Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-
bailable offence;
(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High
Court from an original or appellate order of an
acquittal passed by any Court other than a High
Court [not being an order under clause (a) or an
order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in
revision.”
13. A perusal of above reproduced provision shows that an
appeal by the State of Haryana only was maintainable against a judgment
of acquittal passed in favour of accused if such judgment was rendered
prior to 31.12.2009. In the present case, the impugned judgment was
rendered on 27.07.2009. Therefore, an appeal thereagainst at the instance
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -7-
of the complainant was not maintainable. The complainant Prem Singh has
therefore rightly filed a revision petition against the same.
14. I may also state that revisional powers of this Court can be
exercised in terms of Section 401 of the 1973 Code. Therefore, present
revision has to be dealt within the parameters contained in the said section.
Said section is therefore reproduced as under:-
“401. High Court’s powers of revision.–
(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has
been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its
knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any
of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386,
389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307,
and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are
equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the
manner provided by section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice
of the accused or other person unless he has had an
opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in
his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is
brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -8-
entertained at the instance of the party who could have
appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application
for revision has been made to the High Court by any person
and the High Court is satisfied that such application was
made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto
and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do, the
High Court may treat the application for revision as a
petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.”
15. I may also state that in terms of Section 401(3) of 1973 Code,
this Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In
respect of scope of revisional powers of a High Court, a three Judge Bench
of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report “Pakalapati Narayana
Gajapathi Raju & others Vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu & another“,
(1975) 4 SCC 477, observed as under:-
“3. Section 439 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court may exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of
appeal. This provision is made expressly subject to sub-
section (4) of Section 439 under which nothing contained in
the section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Section
439 has been interpreted in several decisions of this Court
which have taken the view that the revisional jurisdiction,
when invoked by a private complainant against an order of
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -9-acquittal, ought not to be exercised lightly and that it can be
exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of
public justice require interference for the correction of a
manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of
justice.(See Satyendra Nath Dutta v. Ram Narain, (1975) 3
SCC 398; Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, (1974) 1 SCR 130;
Changanti Kotaiah v. Goginoni Venkateshwara Rao, (1973)
3 SCR 867. It is clear from these decisions that the revisional
jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower
court has not appreciated the evidence properly. The High
Court has in its judgment referred to the decisions of this
Court but in applying those decisions it has transgressed the
limits of its revisional powers.”
16. In respect of scope of revisional powers of a High Court, a
three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report “Duli
Chand Vs. Delhi Administration“, (1975) 4 SCC 649, observed as
under:-
“4. …… Now, the jurisdiction of the High Court in a Criminal
Revision Application is severally restricted and it cannot
embark upon reappreciation of the evidence, but even so, the
learned single Judge of the High Court who heard the
revision application, examined the evidence afresh at the
instance of the appellant. This was, however, of no avail, as
the learned single Judge found that the conclusion reached by
the lower Courts that the appellant was guilty of gross
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -10-negligence, was correct and there was no reason to interfere
with the conviction of the appellant. …..
5. …..The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory
jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would
have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence
for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent finding
of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned
Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High
Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of
satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the
finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that
the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. The
High Court came to the conclusion that the evidence clearly
established that the death of the deceased was caused on
account of the negligent driving of the bus by the appellant.
…..”.
17. In respect of revisional powers of a High Court under Section
439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for brevity “1898 Code”), a
three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report
“K.Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P.” AIR 1962 SC 1788 while
referring to its two earlier decisions, observed as under:-
“It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set
aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private
parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal;
but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -11-High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some
glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on
a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant
miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of Section 439 forbids
a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one
of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the
High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of
acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of
ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a
finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places
limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a
finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional
cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to
lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases
which would cover all contingencies. We may however
indicate some cases of this kind, which would in our opinion
justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of
acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial
court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted
the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out
evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where
the appeal court has wrongly held evidence.which was
admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where
material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial
court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -12-on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the
law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be
held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court
can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in
such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High
Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in
view of the provisions of a. 439 (4). We have therefore to see
whether the order ‘of the High Court setting aside the order
of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.”
18. In respect of revisional powers of a High Court, a three Judge
Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report “Ayodhya Dube &
others Vs. Ram Sumer Singh“, 1981 (Supp) SCC 83, while referring to
K.Chinnaswamy Reddy’s report (supra), observed as under:-
“2. In our view the High Court has given adequate reasons
for interfering with the acquittal and ordering a retrial of the
appellants. We may add that the High Court also expressed
the view that the instances mentioned by this Court in
Chinnaswamy vs State of Andhra Pradesh AIR. 1962 S.C.
1978 as justifying interference with orders of acquittal in the
exercise of revisional powers were illustrative and not
exhaustive. We agree with the view expressed by the High
Court and we only wish to say that the Criminal Justice
System does not admit of ‘pigeon-holing.’. Life and the Law
do not fall neatly into slots. When a Court starts laying down
rules enumerated (1), (2), (3), (4) or (a), (b), (c), (d), it is
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -13-arranging for itself traps and pitfalls. Categories,
classifications and compartments, which statute does not
mention, all tend to make law ‘less flexible, less sensible and
less just.”
19. In respect of such powers, a two Judge Bench of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court, in the report “Janata Dal Vs. H.S.Chowdhary“, (1992) 4
SCC 305, observed as under:-
“130. The object of the revisional jurisdiction under Section
401 is to confer power upon superior criminal Courts – a kind
of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction – in order to correct
miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law,
irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or
apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the
one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship
to individuals. The controlling power of the High Court is
discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice
with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular
case, anxious attention being given to the said facts and
circumstances which vary greatly from case to case.
131. xxxx xxxx xxxx
132. The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power to
make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.
Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be
capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised
in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -14-substantial justice for the administration of which alone the
Courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude
of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts
must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this
power is based on sound principles.”
20. While quoting observations made in Janata Dal’s report
(supra) with approval, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme
Court, in the report “T.N.Dhakkal Vs. James Basnett & another”,
(2001) 10 SCC 419, observed as under:-
“9. We are in agreement with the above exposition of law. We
are of the opinion that though the High Court has revisional
jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code and can exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction to correct miscarriage of justice,
but whether or not, there is justification for the exercise of
that discretionary jurisdiction would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. The controlling power of the
High Court under Section 401 of the Code being
discretionary is required to be exercised only in the interest
of justice, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of
each particular case and not mechanically.”
21. In respect of revisional jurisdiction of a High Court, a two
Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report “State of
Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri“, (1999) 2 SCC
452, observed as under:-
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -15-
“Having examined the impugned Judgment of the High Court
and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has
exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In Its revisional
jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the
record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself
as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of
Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for
correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional
power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate
Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate
Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be
appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence
and come to its own conclusion on the same when the
evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as
well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring
feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which
would otherwise tentamount to gross miscarriage of justice.”
22. Observations made in Duli Chand’s report (supra) and
those made in a report “State of Orissa VS. Nakula Sahu“, (1979) 1
SCC 328 as well as Puttumana Illath’s report (supra) were approved by
a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the report “Raj
Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh“, (2008) 11 SCC 76.
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -16-
23. Applying the said observations to the present case, I may
state that the Appellate Court, while dealing with the case against the
accused Narinder Singh, has categorically observed that the said accused
has taken a specific stand in his statement under Section 313 of 1973 Code
that he was on duty at Ramgarh, Tehsil Panchkula, on that date. It also
observes that in support of his such contention, the said accused examined
2 witnesses in his defence. DW1 Sandeep Kumar presented a report of the
relevant period and deposed that the said accused had issued some record
to one Nathu on the date of the occurrence in question i.e. 28.11.1990. It
further records that the said Nathu was examined as DW2 who identified
the accused Narinder Singh and stated that the said accused issued a Fard
to him on the said date at 9.00 a.m. It also mentions that in his cross-
examination, PW1 Prem Singh has stated that the said accused lives at
Panchkula. After recording that the said accused, on the date of
occurrence in question, was stated to be at a distance of 50 kms from the
place of occurrence, the Appellate Court then observed that it is still
inclined to accept plea of absence of the accused Narinder Singh at the
spot and to give him benefit of doubt because his brother Babli had also
been named by the prosecution not only before the police but also in the
Court and a specific role had been assigned to him. It further mentions
that it was done so despite the fact that the accused Babli was found
present on that date in Leh since he was employed/posted in ITBP. The
impugned judgment of the Appellate Court also mentions that the
occurrence in question had taken all of a sudden and was not pre-planned
even as per the case set-forth by the prosecution and therefore presence of
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -17-
the accused Narinder Singh at the spot, in such circumstances, becomes
doubtful. By observing so in favour of the said accused, the Appellate
Court gave him the benefit of doubt and accepted his appeal by acquitting
him. The above referred to conclusion/s arrived at by the Learned
Appellate Court, in the facts/circumstances of the present case, are
certainly possible on the basis of the evidence on record and are
reasonable conclusion/s. Even if another reasonable conclusion may have
been arrived in the case in question against the said accused, this Court, in
a revision petition against acquittal, will not disturb a finding of acquittal
on the basis of possibility of two conclusions. By earning an acquittal
through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, the said accused
has double presumption of innocence in his favour.
24. Above stated reasoning/discussion shows that the impugned
judgment has not caused any miscarriage of justice. It has analysed the
evidence in detail to acquit the accused Narinder Singh. Reappreciation of
evidence is not permissible while exercising a revisional jurisdiction.
Impugned judgment is not perverse or unreasonable. A revisional
jurisdiction cannot be exercised lightly and rather has to be exercised in
exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference
for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of
justice. A revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and therefore is
restricted jurisdiction. The case in question also does not qualify the
ingredients laid down in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy’s report (supra)
quoted with approval in Ayodhya Dube’s report (supra) for exercise of
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -18-
revisional jurisdiction against the impugned judgment. I therefore find no
ground to exercise such jurisdiction against it.
25. Next limb of the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is
that the Learned Appellate Court has illegally granted benefit of probation
to the accused Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des Raj and Surinder
Singh (respondent Nos.1 to 5). However, as against his such argument,
learned counsel for the accused has relied upon Jitender’s report (supra)
and Ganesh Dutt Kaushik’s judgment (supra) to contend that elapsing
of probation period imposed on the accused renders challenge to grant of
probation as infructuous. The said reports are by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court. No report contrary to the report/judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the accused has been cited before me. The impugned
judgment was passed by the Learned Appellate Court on 27.07.2009.
Through the same, it observed as under:-
“The accused have been facing the ordeal of trial for the last
more than 19 years. They are not previous convicts and are
first offenders. They are sole bread earners of their families.
The appellants had been held guilty of having committed an
offence under Sections 148/323/325 read with section 149
and 506 of IPC, which is not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The offence being covered under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, and further in view of
the ratio laid down in State of Punjab Vs. Kuldip Singh and
others 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 670, I am of the opinion that
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -19-the ends of justice would be met if the appellants/accused are
released on probation. Accordingly the appellants are
ordered to be released on probation subject to their
furnishing requisite bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with
one surety of the like amount each undertaking therein that
the appellants shall maintain peace and harmony for a period
of one year and in case during this period they commit any
offence the sentence imposed by the learned trial court will
revive. The probation will be without supervision. It is
further ordered that the appellants namely Jaspal Singh,
Krishan, Nepal Singh, Desh Raj and Surinder Singh shall pay
a compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant/injured.
The amount of fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2000/- by
each appellant) already deposited by the appellants Jaspal
Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Desh Raj and Surinder Singh in
the trial court is converted towards the costs of
proceedings……”
26. A perusal of the above-reproduced observations shows that
the said accused were released on probation for a period of one year.
Today, we are running in the year 2026. The said period of probation,
‘s report (supra) and
therefore, has elapsed. In view thereof, Jitender’
Ganesh Dutt Kaushik’s judgment (supra) are fully applicable to the
case in question in respect of expiry of probation period imposed on the
above-stated accused. The argument/s of learned counsel for the
petitioner, in that regard, therefore, are rejected. It being so, the present
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-136-2010 (O&M) -20-
revision petition, qua the accused Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des
Raj and Surinder Singh, has been rendered infructuous.
27. For the reasoning given and discussion made in preceding
portion of the present judgment, the present revision petition against the
accused Narinder Singh is dismissed whereas it is disposed off as
infructuous against the accused Jaspal Singh, Krishan, Nepal Singh, Des
Raj and Surinder Singh (respondent Nos.1 to 5). All interim application/s
also stand disposed of.
30.03.2026 (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 17:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document