IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

289 CRR-3342-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Iqbaljit Singh @ Happy ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 11.04.2018, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in case titled as State vs. Iqbaljit Singh @ Happy and another, arising out of FIR No. 80 dated 17.04.2013, registered under Sections 326, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner and co-accused had been held guilty and convicted for commission of aforementioned offences and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of two years along with default clause of fine, and also against the judgment dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellate Court’), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner and other co-accused had been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that he does not intend to press the petition on the grounds as taken in the revision petition and restricts his argument only to the extent that benefit of probation be granted to the petitioner. In view thereof, the sole consideration before this Court is as to whether the prayer made by the petitioner for extending benefit of probation can be accepted or not?

3. As mentioned above, the petitioner had been held guilty by the trial Court for commission of offences punishable under Sections 326, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. His appeal had been dismissed by the appellate Court as mentioned above. The petitioner is facing rigors of litigation from the last more about 13 years. Much water has flown since then. The petitioner has already undergone actual imprisonment a period of 03 months and 28 days and in the intervening period, he is not involved in any other criminal case. He is leading happy and peaceful life with his family. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of probation.

4. Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has no serious objection to the prayer made by the petitioner.

5. Before considering the prayer made by the petitioner to release him 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 a