Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Surya Partap Singh, J.
Jeet Singh and Others - Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent(s)
Criminal Revision No. 3308 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On: 25-08-2025
For the petitioner(s):Mr. M.S.Sandhu, Advocate
For the respondents:Mr. Rohit Bansal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
First offenders with clean antecedents are eligible for probation despite convictions, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 186, 332, 342, 353 - Conviction for electricity theft and assault - Petitioners were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fines which were ordered to run concurrently - The petitioners challenged the conviction and sentencing in appeal but were unsuccessful. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Sentencing and Probation - Court considers age, lack of previous criminal record, and the nature of the offence when determining eligibility for probation - The petitioners, being first offenders, were deemed eligible for the benefit of probation. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were convicted for crimes related to assaulting officials during an electricity theft inspection - The FIR stemmed from a complaint involving direct electricity connection and physical threats to the inspecting officials.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, granting probation instead.
Issues: The main issues pertained to the suitability of probation given the offenders' age and lack of prior criminal history.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation for first offenders with clean records while addressing their eligibility for probation based on the nature of the offense.
Result: Revision petition partly accepted; petitioners granted probation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of conviction and sentencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual basis of the complaint. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding sentencing. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's review of existing findings. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. rationale for granting probation. (Para 12) |
| 6. final ruling on the revision petition. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Surya Partap Singh, J.
1. With regard to the commission of offence punishable under Sections 353, 186, 342, 32, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), vide FIR No. 318 dated 10.11.2005, Police Station Sirhind, the revisionists (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”) have been convicted for the commission offence punishable under Sections 186, 332, 342 and 353 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:-
| S.No. | Name of Accused | Offence U/s | Sentence |
| 1. | Jeet Singh, Preetinder Singh and Harwinder Singh alias Sonu | 186 IPC | Simple Imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for seven days. |
| 2. | Jeet Singh, Preetinder Singh and Harwinder Singh alias Sonu | 332 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months. |
| 3. | Jeet Singh, Preetinder Singh and Harwinder Singh alias Sonu | 342 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month. |
| 4. | Jeet Singh, Preetinder Singh and Harwinder Singh alias Sonu | 353 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months. |
All these sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The above mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence were challenged by the petitioners in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. However, the appeal filed by the petitioners did not find favour from the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, and the judgment of dismissal of appeal by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners.
4. Succinctly, the facts emerging from record shows that the FIR mentioned above came into being in view of a complaint submitted by Jagpal Singh, Junior Engineer, posted in Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Chorwala. In the above mentioned complaint, it was alleged by the complainant that on 10.11.2005, when a checking party comprising of several officials of the Punjab State Electricity Board DEEPAK KUMAR BHAR(DhWeArJeinafter referred to as “the PSEB”) visited in village Jallah and reached the house of the petitioners, it was found that the petitioner was committing theft of electricity by direct connection to the main line. According to complainant, when appropriate formalities were being completed by the officials of the PSEB, petitioner-Jeet Singh exhorted and provoked his sons, namely Preetinder Singh and Sonu Singh to teach the officials of the PSEB a lesson. As per complaint, thereafter they all three, in a threatening manner physically pushed the visiting party of the PSEB and illegally locked the complainant in their drawing room, and thereafter, thrashed him.
5. It has been the case of the prosecution that in view of the above mentioned complaint, a formal FIR in this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, on completion of investigation, when the challan was presented and trial was conducted by the learned trial Court, it culminated into conviction.
6. Heard.
7. At the threshold, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made it clear that he does not want to argue on the merits of the case i.e. qua the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to conviction of the petitioners. The revision petition has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner with reg
