Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.797 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Gyandeo Mandal S/O Sri Sikandar Mandal R/O Vill.- Khuthari, P.S.- Kahalgaon, Distt.- Bhagalpur 2. Subhash Mandal S/O Late Tala Mandal R/O Vill.- Khuthari, P.S.- Kahalgaon, Distt.- Bhagalpur 3. Sikandar Mandal S/O Late Tala Mandal R/O Vill.- Khuthari, P.S.- Kahalgaon, Distt.- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Chhatish Tanti S/O Ganga Tanti R/O Vill.- Khuthari Kirani Tola, P.S.- Kahalgaon, Distt.- Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Najmul Hoda, Advocate For the Opp. Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 04-07-2012 The petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.3.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2008 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. IInd, Bhagalpur, dismissing the aforesaid criminal appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners, and affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court convicting the petitioners under [STATUTE] only and releasing them on due admonition under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, have preferred the present revision application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment and order Patna High Court CR. REV. No.797 of 2010 (2) dt.04-07-2012 2/3 passed by the learned courts below. It appears that the petitioners were put on trial with respect to the occurrence dated 13th May, 2004 for the charges under [STATUTE] . The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur by his impugned judgment and order dated 26th June, 2008 passed in G.R. Case No. 1117 of 2004/ T.R. No. 219 of 2008 has disbelieved the major part of the prosecution case, and acquitted the petitioners for most of the charges, but convicted them under [STATUTE] . However, instead of sentencing them to prison, the learned trial court by exercising his powers under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, has released the petitioners on due admonition. On appeal preferred by the petitioners, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was affirmed by learned lower appellant court by the impugned judgment and order dated 4th March, 2010, and appeal was dismissed on the ground that the learned trial court has already taken a very lenient view in the matter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1, Gyandeo Mandal, is serving under the Indian Air Force on the post of fitter, and at least Patna High Court CR. REV. No.797 of 2010 (2) dt.04-07-2012 3/3 his interest may be protected, so that his service career is not adversely affected because of the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court and the learned lower appellate court. Admittedly, the petitioners have been convicted only under [STATUTE] . Their conviction is for a petty offence. There is no question of involvement of any moral turpitude in such a petty matter, and, as such, the apprehension of petitioner no. 1 that his service career may be adversely affected because of the aforesaid conviction is completely misconceived and not tenable in the eye of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out. Consequently, the application stands dismissed, subject to observation made above with respect to the petitioner no.1, Gyandeo Mandal. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 448

Statute Text:
Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. House-trespass. Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.