ORDER :

In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 691/1999

This Court after careful examination of record and hearing submissions of both the parties in appeal against the same impugned order is arrived at a considered conclusion that in the given circumstances it would be appropriate to upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC as well as other offences as per the impugned order, and further accused-persons have been granted relief of substitution of sentence by the sentence already undergone is a proposition, which governs the present revision petition also where the same parties had challenged the same impugned order seeking conviction under Section 307 IPC.

In light of the aforesaid observations and the order passed in the appeal, it is a fit case where no interference is called for. The revision, thus, is dismissed.

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 10/1999

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed with and the sentence and conviction passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, in Sessions Case No. 56/95 may kindly be set-aside and quashed.”

2. The matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 1995 and the present appeal has been pending since 1999.

3. Vide impugned judgment dated 16.12.1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingnagar, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 56/95 convicted accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 352 IPC and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act and sentenced as under:

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the offence under Section 352 IPC is punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to three months and under Section 27 of Indian Arms Act is punishable with a maximum imprisonment up to seven years, therefore, the appellant may be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents to his discredit.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant however, makes a limited prayer that the accused-appellant may be granted benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct:

(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or i