$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 + CRL.REV.P. 208/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10528/2026 PINNU SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Kapur and Ms.

Shweta, Advocates versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with SI Ankit Sharma, PS Fatehpur Beri.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Petitioner (complainant de facto before the trial court) has assailed judgment dated 28.02.2026 of the learned appellate court, whereby the sentence awarded by the trial court was modified by extending benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.

2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, but I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice.

CRL.REV.P. 208/2026 Page 1 of 5 pages D B Si y i g g :D i n ta a I l K t l u y S r H S e i A g N n R o ed A t V W e A ri T fied G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2aCps9cD e n f. 6 oO iN a 53 r g =b s t i . U9 :4 a i e t 4G tc 6 aR l . : a 0 2 N = I 2 l 2 T R l C f 0I c u 0 8 y I N oO = S 6 m 2 0 s, d H 8fF 6 c i b o be g 4 b . D K 4 = 0 =e 0 n dA 8 4 E H r 1 1 e 2= 3 . L T d 1 0 Id e G H5 d H 0 d 7 e b d 3 H I0 P 8 e , 0 y 4C e0 A 8 6 6 C 3 8 I3 G 9 0L D : O 5 6 0 , b I4 I A f 7 R s 4 U - 2 0 9 t 9 I : 7 R = 7 2 0 S 7 6 0 H a c T 6 6 D4 4 4 7 2 O - e5 K 7 8 7 0 6 l1 AF 6 7 h b 7 c e 3 9 T a i ' 2D 0 ,c 8c 6 H f 4 E 0 6c, 5 P 5 L ' a5 f AH c ,f 80 o LI, 07 I u A e 1b =4 e5 Ha 2d fI 6 eG 1f c 5a H4 5, 5 7 5 0 6 9 9

3. Broadly speaking, circumstances relevant for present purposes are that in trial arising out of FIR No. 42/2009 of Police Station Fatehpur Beri, the present respondent no. 2 was convicted by the learned trial Magistrate for offence under Section 420 IPC, but was acquitted as regards offence under Section 468/471 IPC. The learned trial Magistrate by way of order dated 15.09.2023 imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for three years plus compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- to be paid to the complainant de facto (the present petitioner). The present respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal before the learned Court of Sessions. By way of the judgment impugned in the present case, the learned appellate court upheld the conviction, but modified the sentence by maintaining the payment of compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the present petitioner and extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the present respondent no. 2. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner on instruction admits that the compensation as awarded stands paid, but contends that the appellate court failed to appreciate that the trial court had recorded specific reasoning for not extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. It is also contended that even the compensation awarded to the present petitioner (the complainant de facto of the State case) was on lower side, so the appellate court ought to have enhanced the compensation amount. It is contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the present respondent no. 2 is liable to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. However, it is also admitted that the present petitioner never approached any court with CRL.REV.P. 208/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages D B Si y i g g :D i n ta a I l K t l u y S r H S e i A g N n R o ed A t V W e A ri T fied G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD25ops0,D e c .6 9 uo iN a 5 n r g 9 9 =s t i .: = 4 a i e t a 6 t H c al . :G f a b 2 N = 3 lI 2 l CG 4I 0I 9 u R0 yN 0 o = H6 m 2I f s S , d 82 6 8 i C o H be g 4c . 0 = 0 O=e 06 n cK4 H r 1f 1U e bA = b . d 1 0 Id d R G 4 T d0 d 7 2 T b H 8 3 H 0 8 e 0 3 y O e P 0 8 e 6 C 5 8 A 3 G F 9 e : O d 6 0 , L b 6 I D4 7 R s 3 U I 2 0A tE3 9 I : R = 7 4 5 S L 5 6 H a 0 T 5 DHf 4 7 2 9 O - e5 I K 7 c 0 7,lC 1 AF 4 h b 7 6 e I 8 T i ' 22D D 0 ,c 7 H f6 4 E 0 6 - 9 c P 5 L ' 5 7 6 a AH c f 0c 50 LI c4 f , 7 I a A 7 e 8b ,6 4 05 3 a 1d f 8 e e 1 , 2 c 56 4 5f 5 7a challenge to the quantum of compensation.

5. At the outset, the scope of the revisi