- (1.) THE complainant Ajit Kaur has moved this present petition, aggrieved by the release of the accused Sanjeev Kumar on probation by both the courts below, after convicting him for an offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender and, therefore, the courts below ought not to have released the petitioner on probation. He would also submit that an F.I.R in the year 2002 was registered as against the petitioner for an offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. An F.I.R. under Section 442 and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered in the year 2001. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the cases registered as against him, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to have been released on probation.
(3.) I find that there is no merit in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The present case originated way back in the year 1998. The offence is only under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the courts, of course, have held that the 1st respondent committed criminal trespass and that therefore, he was liable to be convicted, however, considering the trivial nature of offence, both the courts have thought it fit to release the 1 st respondent on probation.;