1 ( 2025:HHC:17303 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.4058 of 2013 Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 Roshan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision against the judgment, dated 05.07.2013, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2010, titled as Roshan Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. Vide judgment, dated 05.07.2013, the learned Appellate Court, has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the convict’), filed under 2 ( 2025:HHC:17303 ) Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 3. By virtue of judgment of conviction, dated 29.09.2010, the learned trial Court has convicted the convict, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and vide order of sentence, dated 30.09.2010, the convict has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of 500/-, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and in case of default of fine, the convict has been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The convict has also been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. The convict has been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC 3 ( 2025:HHC:17303 ) and in case of default of fine, the convict has been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 4. The instant Criminal Revision has been admitted for hearing by this Court, vide order, dated 20.08.2013. 5. Vide order, dated 21.03.2025, this Court has ordered to call for the report of the Probation Officer. In sequel thereto, the report of the Probation Officer has been received. 6. Today, the convict, who is present in the Court, vide his separate statement, has stated that he does not want to press the instant criminal revision petition, filed against the judgment of conviction and prayed that he may be released on probation. 7. In this case, the first and foremost question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is as to whether the prayer of the convict can be accepted. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the convict is the first offender, the offence committed by him is not premeditated one and no subsequent offence has been stated to be committed by him. 9. The convict has been named as accused in FIR No.87 of 2006, dated 08.08.2006. The learned trial Court, while 4 ( 2025:HHC:17303 ) passing the order of sentence, dated 30.09.2010, has convicted the convict, as aforesaid. 10. The report of the Probation Officer perused. 11. The Probation Officer has specifically mentioned that the conduct of the convict, during past years, in the society, is good. No other case has been found to be registered against him. 12. The offences, for which, the convict has been convicted, are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The convict is having the permanent abode in Village Kumardha, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P., as per the report of the Probation Officer. There is nothing on the file to demonstrate that after the incident, upon which, the FIR was registered against the convict, any other incident, had taken place. The convict has already faced the agony of the trial, including the pendency of the appeal, for the last nineteen years. 13. In view of the above, there is no legal hesitation to extend the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5 ( 2025:HHC:17303 ) 14. Our Criminal Jurisprudence System is reformatory in nature. With the passage of time, it has been realized that sending the first offender to jail, to undergo substantive sentence, does not produce good results, as, the first offender/convict, sometimes, may come in contact with the hardened criminals. 15. The probation is a kind of non-custodial sentence, by giving an opportunity to the convict to reform himself, while abiding by certain conditions, imposed by the Court, for a certain period. It is a reformatory measure to achieve the object, by giving an opportunity to the convict, to reform himself, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentence. 16. While, not pressing his criminal revision petition, against the judgment of conviction, the convict has categorically stated that he is the first offender and the sole bread earner of his family. Rejecting the prayer of the convict to release him on probation, would amount to punishing his family members, for the offences, committed by the convict 17. Considering the nature of the offences, this Court is of the view that it would be expedient to release the convict on 6 ( 2025:HHC:17303 ) probation of good conduct, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentence, as imposed by the learned trial Court. 18. Considering all these facts, the criminal revision petition of the convict is dismissed against the judgment of conviction, however, in view of the discussions made above, the order of sentence is ordered to be modified. Instead of directing the convict to undergo the substantive sentence, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 40,000/-, with one ₹ surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, to keep peace and be of good behaviour, for a period of two years and to receive the substantive sentence, as and when, called upon to do so, during the period of two years. 19. The convict is also directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 50,000/-, which shall be in addition to the fine amount, already deposited by him, in this case, with the learned trial Court, within a period of one month from today. The said amount of ₹ 50,000/- shall be paid to the injured persons, in equal shares, as compensation, by the learned trial Court, after issuing notices to them, in this regard. 20. It is clarified that in case of violation of any of the conditions, so imposed, including the terms and conditions of 7 ( 2025:HHC:17303 ) the requisite bonds, the order of sentence shall revive automatically, without reference to this Court. In that eventuality, the convict is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive sentence. 21. In view of the above, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge May 23, 2025 (subhash)