A.N.JINDAL, J. - (1.) THE trial court, vide judgment dated 3.04.2007, convicted the accused/respondents (herein referred as the respondents) under sections 148, 323, 325 and 149 IPC and sentenced them as under :- Name of convicts Under Sections Sentence Fine 1. Jagir Singh 2. Mahal Singh 3. Kashmir Singh 4. Babbu Sabba 148 IPC } 323/149 IPC } R.I. for one year each count -do- 325/149 IPC R.I. for two years
(2.) HOWEVER , vide judgment dated 22.10.2009, the first appellate court, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case without mentioning the provisions under which the benefit of probation was being granted, affirmed the conviction and modified the sentence by extending the benefit of probation. Relevant extract of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is reproduced as under:- ".....the appellants/accused are ordered to be released on probation on executing probation bond for a period of one year and for a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety of like amount in each case and it is ordered that the fine already ordered by the learned lower court is ordered to be treated as cost of prosecution. Thus, the appeal is partly accepted to the effect that the sentence stands modified and the accused/appellants are ordered to be released on probation as ordered above. It is made clear that in case accused/appellants shall be found to have committed same offence again within such period, they shall be called upon to receive the sentence in accordance with law." The prime question raised by the earned counsel for the petitioner in this petition is that the court while extending the benefit of probation did not consider for granting compensation to the petitioner as provided under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein referred as the Code).
(3.) THIS Court vide order dated 18.08.2010 had issued notice of motion while considering the ground that appellate court should have granted compensation to the complainant/injured under section 357 of the Code.;