- (1.) Heard Shri R.K.Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist/ accused persons against the judgment and order dated 18.10.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 1993, Ram Autar and others Vs. State of U.P., dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 15.4.1993 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur in Case No.1644 of 1991 (arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 1985) State Vs. Ram Dass and others, convicting and sentencing the revisionists under Section 324 I.P.C for six months rigorous imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs.500/- and under Section 323 I.P.C for three months rigorous imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist/accused persons shall undergo two months and one month simple imprisonment respectively, in addition to the awarded rigorous imprisonments.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionists has not pressed the revision on merits but simply made a solitary submission that the Courts below should have invoked the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C as well as Section 4 of Probation of Offenders' Act, 1958, and instead of sentencing the accused persons in such type of case of domestic quarrel between the families of rustic villagers, who are neighbours, with a view to maintain their cordial relations in future. He has further contended that the Courts below have not indicated in their impugned judgments as to why they have not extended the benefit of these aforesaid beneficial legislations. Therefore, there has been a gross miscarriage of justice and legislative mandate engrafted in the aforesaid provisions have not been complied with.;