B.R. Arora, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated March 19, 1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the benefit of probation to the accused -respondent No. 2, Mohammed Rashid.
(2.) ACCUSED Mohammed Rashid was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for offence Under Sections 452 and 324, I.P.C. The incident, which led to the -prosecution of the accused Mohammed Rashid, took place on June 25, 1980, when, according to the prosecution, Mohammed Hanif alongwith his wife had gone for the condolences to his uncle and there a quarrel ensued between Mohammed Rashid and Mohammed Hanif. Mohammed Hanif returned to his house and when he was talking with his wife, in the meanwhile the accused came there and knocked at the door. Mohammed Hanif opened the door and as soon as he opened the door, the accused Mohammed Rashid threw chillies -powder in his eyes and, also, inflicted injury to him with a knife. On the basis of this information, a First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan Under Sections 307, 452 and 323, I.P.C. against the accused. The learned Magistrate committed the accused to stand trial to the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, as the offence Under Section 307, I.P.C. was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the case and sent back the same Under Section 228 Cr. P.C. for trial to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the charge Under Section 307, I.P.C. cannot be framed. The accused Mohammed Rashid was, therefore, tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and after trial, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused Under Sections 452 and 324, I.P.C. and awarded the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 452, I.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, also, sentenced the accused to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment Under Section 324, I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the judgment convicting and sentencing the accused, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which was ultimately decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who maintained the conviction Under Sections 452 and 324, I.P.C, but instead of sentencing the accused, he gave the benefit of probation to the accused -respondent. It is against this order, granting the benefit of probation to the accused Mohammed Rashid that the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant Mohammed Hanif. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused -respondent.
(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in giving the benefit of probation to the accused -respondent, and in giving the benefit of probation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the reasons given by the trial Court for not granting the benefit of probation to the accused -respondent. It has further been argued that the report of the Probation Officer has not been obtained and as such in the absence of the report of the Probation Officer, the benefit of probation could not have been given to the accused -respondent. It was also argued that in giving the benefit of probation to the accused, the learned lower Court has completely ignored the injuries received by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner remained in the hospital for about 24 days. Lastly, it was argued that the compensation awarded to the petitioner is most inadequate and it should be enhanced. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for the accused -respondent have, on the other hand, supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.;