Breach of probation conditions can lead to the cancellation of probation and imposition of a sentence.

R.L. Khurana, J.—The petitioner, Partap Singh, upon having been tried for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 17-S/7 of 1992/89 by the learned Sessions Judge (Forests), exercising the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, came to be convicted for the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 23.3.1993. Upon such conviction, the learned trial Court instead of imposing any sentence upon the petitioner granted him the benefit of Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act and ordered his release on probation for a period of one year on his executing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 2,000 with one surety to the like amount and during the period of such probation he was directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour.

2. The allegations against the petitioner vide FIR No. 197/89 Police Station Sadar, Shimla were that on 1.9.1989 at about 5.30 p.m. at The Mall, Shimla, he had attacked Shri A.N. Sharma, the then Superintendent of Police (Enforcement) with a dagger in an attempt to commit his murder. As a result of such attack Shri A.N. Sharma had sustained an injury in the form of an incised wound in the right infrascapular region 10 cms. from mid line, 9th intercostal space with clean cut parallel edges, elliptical shape, skin deep.

3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by his conviction for the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, as recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23.3.1993, preferred an appeal, being Cr. A. No. 62 of 1993 assailing his conviction. Such appeal, however, was not pressed by the petitioner and the same was accordingly dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.8.1997.

4. It appears that while on probation, the petitioner on 24.5.1993 at about 7.30 p.m. at The Mall, Shimla, assaulted Shri M.S. Mandyal, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge with a knife in an attempt to murder him. A case for the offence under Sections 307, 353 and 506, Indian Penal Code, came to be registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, vide FIR No. 172 of 1993 on 24.5.1993.

5. On 27.5.1993, an application was made on behalf of the State by the learned Public Prosecutor, under Section 9, Probation of Offenders Act for cancellation of the probation granted to the petitioner and for imposing sentence upon him for the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for which offence he stood convicted vide judgment dated 23.3.1993. It was pleaded that the petitioner during the continuance of his probation period had committed the offence under Sections 307, 353 and 506, Indian Penal Code and as such had failed to observe the conditions of the bond entered into by him.

6. Notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why his probation be not cancelled and he be not imposed the punishment for the offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for which offence he stood convicted vide judgment dated 23.3.1993. Cause was shown by the petitioner. In his reply to the show cause notice, he admitted that a case for the offences under Sections 307, 353 and 506, Indian Penal Code, stood registered against him on 24.5.1993 vide FIR No. 172 of 1993 at Police Station Sadar. He however, pleaded that the case against him was false and frivolous and that he was falsely implicated in the case for ulterior motives. He further pleaded that in fact he was assaulted, beaten and got arrested by the complainant and other persons. He, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the application made by the State under Section 9, Probation of Offenders Act, and for continuance of his probation.

7. The application made by the State was inquired into by the learned trial Court. The parties were afforded due opportunities to lead evidence. Both oral as well as documentary evidence was led by the parties. The petitioner was provided legal aid by appointing a counsel at State expenses for him.

8. The evidence brought on record against the petitioner shows that