There is another added features which this Court cannot ignore. In Hari Ram versus State of Rajasthan & Another, 2009 (2) RCR (Crl.), 878, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the amendment in the Juvenile Justice Act has to apply retrospe..

There is another added features which this Court cannot ignore. In Hari Ram versus State of Rajasthan & Another, 2009 (2) RCR (Crl.), 878, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the amendment in the Juvenile Justice Act has to apply retrospectively to the appeals and the revisions pending before the Court. Therefore, accused Ram Sarup was a juvenile. In a case, where offence is allegedly made out under Section 326 IPC, this Court is of the view that no ends of justice will be served in case after 11 years, the matter is remanded back to Juvenile Justice Court to hold an enquiry. I find no merit in the instant revision petition to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction as learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity. There is no merit in the present petition which is hereby dismissed 

Appellant has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial of about 15 years. Injuries caused by them are simple in nature and fall within the ambit of Show

Appellant has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial of about 15 years. Injuries caused by them are simple in nature and fall within the ambit of Section 323 IPC. Counsel states that parties are neighbourers and in case, petitioners, are sent behind the bars at this stage, it may disturb the prevailing peace. Petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to their filing a bond to this effect before the trial Court. The trial Court may also seek surety bonds during the period of probation. The petitioners shall maintain good conduct and peace. However, in case of breach of any clause of the bond, they would be called upon by the trial Court to serve sentence. The cost of litigation qua each petitioner is determined as Rs.7500/-. Out of the amount of Rs.15,000/-,Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to Chand Ram PW-3 and Rs.5000/- to Jaspal Ram PW-2. In case, cost of litigation is not deposited, no benefit of probation shall accrue to the petitioners

It is a case where not only the conduct of the complainant and his father but also the conduct of the accused does not match with the situation at the spot. They are said to have come to take illegal possession of the vacant land, which the compla..

It is a case where not only the conduct of the complainant and his father but also the conduct of the accused does not match with the situation at the spot. They are said to have come to take illegal possession of the vacant land, which the complainant claims to have purchased from Kala Singh and others. Besides demolishing katcha wall and taking away wooden planks, the accused are not said to have taken possession of the said land during the night. There was no resistance from the side of the complainant and in such a situation they could have enclosed the said land with a boundary wall during the night. They are said to have just gone away with the wooden planks after demolishing the wall. It is a case where not only the conduct of the complainant and his father but also the conduct of the accused does not match with the situation at the spot. They are said to have come to take illegal possession of the vacant land, which the complainant claims to have purchased from Kala Singh and others. Besides demolishing katcha wall and taking away wooden planks, the accused are not said to have taken possession of the said land during the night. There was no resistance from the side of the complainant and in such a situation they could have enclosed the said land with a boundary wall during the night. They are said to have just gone away with the wooden planks after demolishing the wall.