MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA,J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 30.6.2001 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Kota in Cr. Appeal No. 2/2000, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment dated 24.11.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota in Cr. Case No. 320/1989, whereby the petitioner Ghanshyam has been convicted for the offence under Section 326, 148, 452 IPC and other petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 326/149 and 148, 452 IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 years' RI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 year's RI, has been affirmed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the courts below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place in the year 1989 i.e. about 25 years' ago from today; the petitioners are not the habitual offender; they belong to a respectable family; they are poor persons; it is the first offence of their life and accused petitioners have remained in confinement for about 20 days, hence either they should be given the benefit of probation and if not, then they should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above.
(3.) In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.L.J. 2061, wherein their Lordships observed as under: "Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation. Appeal dismissed." ;