S.C. Singhal, J. - (1.) Since both these revision petitions arise out of the same impugned judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) Both these two revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 27.4.95 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioners Har Lal for the offence u/s. 326 IPC and Chhitar and Gopal for the offence u/s. 323 IPC. Learned trial court convicted accused petitioner Har Lal for the offence u/s. 326 IPC and sentenced him to one year's RI with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's RI. Accused petitioners Chhitar and Gopal were convicted for the offence u/s. 323 IPC and each of them was sentenced to one month's RI.
(3.) The facts of the case are contained in the judgment of two courts below and moreso in the judgment of the trial court in detail, but the only prayer which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is of the year 1983 and the accused petitioners have already undergone some sentences. Not only this, both the courts below have erred in not extending the benefit of section 361 Cr.P.C. or section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to accused petitioners Chhitar and Gopal. He has contended that accused petitioner Har Lal should be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. In this connection, he cited before me Gurucharan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1992 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 680;