B. K. Sharma, J. - (1.) LIST revised. None appears for the revisionists. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, appears for the State in person.
(2.) HEARD learned Addl. Government Advocate and gone through the record with his help. Vide Judgment and order dated 3.5.82 Sri Kanhaiya Lal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Farrukhabad in Criminal Case No. 475 of 1981 State v. Yatendra and others, convicted the accused-revisionists of the offences under Sections 323/34 and 325/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for 3 months for the offence under Section 323/34, I.P.C. and R.I. for 9 months for the offence under Section 325/34, I.P.C. The accused-revisionists challenged their convictions and sentences by the trial court in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1982 which was partly allowed by Sri M. S. Premi Ilnd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad by his judgment and order dated 9.7.1982, whereby he upheld the convictions of the accused-revisionists for both the offences but on the point of sentence, he directed that each one of them shall be released on probation by the trial court on their depositing Rs. 300 at the rate of Rs. 100 each in the court, which will be paid by the lower appellate court to the complainant as compensation. He further directed that the trial court shall fix the amount of bonds and number of sureties at its discretion and will release them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year. He further directed that the accused shall appear before the trial court on or before 15.7.1982. He further directed that if the accused fail to deposit Rs. 300 in the court on or before 15.7.82, their appeal shall stand dismissed. Now so far as the merit of convictions is concerned, there is none. There is also nothing wrong in the order of release of the accused-revisionists on probation. However, the condition of the deposit of Rs. 100 each by the accused in the court as a condition before the release on probation becoming available to them is concerned it is manifestly illegal even though it is provided to compensate the complainant because a direction was made for the payment of this amount to him as compensation. It is however, not clear as to whether this amount of Rs. 300 at the rate of Rs. 100 each was deposited and whether any bonds were furnished on or before 15.7.1982 or not as ordered by the lower appellate court or on any date subsequent thereto. Therefore, suitable directions will have to be given by this Court.
(3.) THE revision is accordingly partly allowed. THE convictions of all the accused-revisionists for the offences under Section 323/34 and 325/34, I.P.C. are up-held but the direction for release of the accused-revisionists by the court below on probation is modified. THE condition of depositing Rs.100 each by the accused-revisionists is set aside and the direction about furnishing of the bonds is further modified to the extent that the accused-revisionists if they have not already furnished the bonds of release on probation before the trial Court, would now furnish the same to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned within a period of one month from the date of service of notice by the trial court on them in this regard. THE amount of each bond and number of sureties shall be fixed by the trial court at its own descretion and intimated to the accused-revisionists by the said notice. In case, the bonds are not furnished within the time granted by this Court, the accused-revisionists shall suffer R.I. as directed by the trial court in its Judgment. In case the bonds about the probation have already been furnished by the accused-revisionists before the trial court and the term of the bonds has expired nothing further will be required to be done by the accused- revisionists. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent by the Registry to the Sessions Judge concerned within a week from today by registered post seeking compliance report within three months from today. Revision partly allowed.;