upheld by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot. However, I find that neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court had considered the aspect of release of the petitioners on probation. The petitioners have been found guilty of offences under Sections 324/323 IPC and the Court was required to consider the aspect of their release on probation. The provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. enjoin upon the Court to consider the case of an accused person, who was convicted for an offence for their release on probation. In this regard, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eliamma Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 47 , can be taken note of. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court has not considered the statutory requirement for release of the petitioners on probation. Nothing appears from the record or otherwise urged before me to show that there is any reason for which the release of the petitioners on probation cannot be considered and allowed. The statutory requirement for imposing minimum punishment even has not been held to be a bar to consider the prayer for release on probation. The incident is old one. The Police investigating the incident found the petitioners innocent. The petitioners have remained on bail for so many year. It may not now sound very appropriate to direct them to undergo the remaining part of the imprisonment. It will further retard their effort to reform themselves. Accordingly, a case for giving chance to the petitioners to reform themselves is made out.
