JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2016 and order on quantum of sentence dated 21.12.2016, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in case titled as State vs. Davinder Singh and Another, Arising out of FIR No. 68 dated 28.07.2012, registered under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Panjokhra, District Ambala, whereby the petitioners had been held guilty and convicted under the aforesaid sections and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of maximum one year along with default clause of fine, and also against the judgment dated 26.08.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellate Court’), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners had been dismissed.

2. It is relevant to mention that since no one was appearing on behalf of the petitioners since long, Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the petitioners, vide order dated 10.11.2025. However, his name had wrongly been mentioned as ‘Manjit Singh’ in the said order due to a typographical error.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that they do not intend to press the petition on the grounds as taken in the revision petition and restrict their argument to the extent that benefit of probation be granted to the petitioners. In view thereof, the sole consideration before this Court is as to whether the prayer made by the petitioners for extending benefit of probation can be accepted or not?

4. As mentioned above, the petitioners had been held guilty by the trial Court for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. Their appeal had been dismissed by the appellate Court as mentioned above. The petitioners are facing rigors of litigation from the last more about 13 years. Much water has flown since then. The petitioners have already undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 17 days and in the intervening period, they are not shown to be involved in any other case. They have clean antecedents. They are leading happy and peaceful life with their families. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of probation.

5. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant has no serious objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioners.

6. Before considering the prayer made by the petitioners to release them on probation, let us have a look on the law on this point. The aims and object of the Probation Act came to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1972 AIR (SC) 2522. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of the Probation Act had held as under:-

"The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. The above object is in consequence with the present trend in the field of penology, according to which effort should be made to bring about correction and reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to retributive justice. Modern criminal jurisprudence recognizes that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are the product of socio-economic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very serious offences and of preventing their asso