Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 1681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
Pala Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRR No.1715 of 2008 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-08-2025
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate For Mr. Virender Singh Punia, Advocate
Mr. Ved Parkash, Sr, Dag, Haryana
The court emphasized the importance of considering the offender's background and behavior when determining probation eligibility, favoring rehabilitation over punishment.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 186, 353, and 379 - Conviction upheld, but sentence modified - Petitioner convicted for theft of electricity and related offenses; sentenced to one year for each offense following an appeal - Petitioner had no prior criminal history and demonstrated good behavior post-offense - Court granted probation based on mitigating factors - Judgment highlights the need to consider the nature of the crime and the offender's past conduct for sentencing. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Probation - Court found petitioner entitled to probation due to absence of prior convictions and good behavior - Modified sentence allows for rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner charged with electricity theft and assaulting officials during inspection - Initial sentence was two years, reduced upon appeal to one year for certain charges.
Findings of Court:
Conviction affirmed with modification for sentence, granting probation based on petitioner's clean record and behavior since the incident.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner deserved leniency considering his background and the nature of the offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that given the absence of prior offenses and the time elapsed since the crime, probation was a suitable outcome promoting rehabilitation over punishment.
Result: Petition partly allowed, probation granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and sentencing history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding probation and sentencing. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. observations on petitioner's conduct and history. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. entitlement to probation based on circumstances. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J .
1. The petitioner in this case is a convict who has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 353 , 186 and 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under, by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal.
| Under Sections | Sentence | Fine | In default of payment of fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| 353 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years | --- | --- |
| 186 IPC | --- | Rs.500/- | To further undergo imprisonment for 7 days |
| 379 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years | --- | --- |
2. The appeal against the abovementioned judgment did not find favour in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal and the same was dismissed by virtue of judgment dated 22.08.2008. However, appeal regarding order of sentence was partly accepted and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years, for the offences under Sections 353 and 379 of IPC , was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each.
3. Briefly stated the facts emerges from the record are that the FIR of this case came in the backdrop of a compliant submitted by the Junior Engineer of Electricity Board. According to complainant on 6.10.1997 at 11.30 am. O.P. Kathuria, J.E (PW6) in the presence of Chander Shekhar JE (PW2) and other staff members of Electricity Department checked the premises of accused Pala Ram situated in village Harsola and found that he was committing theft of electricity energy be direct connection. As per complainant at the time of checking when the abovementioned team tried to remove the wire and fitted electrical motor etc. the accused hurled abuses to the checking party and also manhandled OP.Katupalia. It had been further alleged that in view of above incident Shri P.K. Goyal SDO (PW1) sent letters Ex PA and Ex. PA/1 to the S.H.O. Police Station Sadar Kaithal for registration of FIR against the accused. Pursuant to abovementioned FIR the investigation was conducted and on completion of investigation and other usual formalities, a challan was presented in the court.
4. Since the Court of learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal with regard to finding of conviction but partly accepted with regard to quantum of sentence, the petitioner resorted to instant revision petition.
5. Heard.
6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already served a sentence of 1 month and 17 days against the awarded sentence of 2 years. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has clean antecedents and he has never faced trial either before the present prosecution or thereafter and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of probation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while not opting to challenge the findings of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, viz-a-viz learned Sessions Judge, has argued on the point of quantum of sentence only and requested that the petitioner in view of his clear antecedents deserve a lenient view.
8. Learned State counsel while confirming that the petitioner has undergone sentence of 1 month and 17 days has opposed the prayer for the benefit of probation to the petitioner, on the ground that the nature of offence committed by the petitioner does not warrant any such concession.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. A perusal of the record shows that custody certificate placed on record by respondent-State shows that the petitioner has never faced any other prosecution either before the current FIR No. 753 dated 08.10.1997 or thereafter. The record also shows that charge for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 379 , 353 and 186 IPC was framed against the petitioner and the maximum punishment prescribed for the abovesaid offence is imprisonment up to 3 years.
11. In addition
