Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.3 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Arjun Yadav S/o Sukhdeo Yadav 2. Nakul Yadav S/o Sukhdeo Yadav 3. Sahdeo Yadav S/o Sukhdeo Yadav, all R/o village- Naulakha, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State of Bihar : M/s. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 24-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. By the judgment and order dated 25th January, 2008 passed in G.R. No. 892 of 2001/Tr. No. 3307 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger, the petitioners were convicted for charges under [STATUTE] . However, they have been given a benefit of doubts so far the charges under [STATUTE] . are concerned, and have been acquitted for those charges. For their conviction under [STATUTE] ., in stead of sentencing them to prison, they have been given benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and were released on Patna High Court CR. REV. No.3 of 2009 (3) dt.24-09-2012 2/3 execution of probation bond of Rs. 5000/- for maintaining peace and of good behaviour for one year, in terms of section 4 (1) of the said Act. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 25.1.2008, preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2008, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 29th September 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. VI, Munger and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court have been affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction only on the ground that since injury report was not available on record, the learned trial court was not justified in recording judgment of conviction against the petitioners for charges under [STATUTE] . After having heard the parties, this Court finds that there has been a concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned trial court as also by the learned lower appellate court that the charges under [STATUTE] . have been proved by the prosecution against the petitioners, and, therefore, they have been convicted for the said charges. This Court further finds that the petitioners have not been imposed substantive punishment Patna High Court CR. REV. No.3 of 2009 (3) dt.24-09-2012 3/3 and have not been sentenced to prison, rather they have been given benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and have been released on execution of bond in terms of section 4 (1) of the said Act. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned courts below, which may justify interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No case for interference is made out. The application stands dismissed. 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.