IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1958 of 2009 Chandeshwar Chaudhary, S/O Late Baijnath Chaudhary, R/O Vill.- Thahra Gopalpur, P.S.- Wani, Distt.- Samastipur. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ram Prasad Mahto S/O Late Moti Mahto R/O Vill.- Thahra Gopalpur, P.S.- Waini, Distt.- Samastipur 3. Rajesh Choudhary S/O Ram Prasad Mahto R/O Vill.- Thahra Gopalpur, P.S.- Waini, Distt.- Samastipur. ……….Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 2. 19.12.2011 The informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Samastipur in S.T.No.68/2004 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 447, 341, 323, 504 and 325 of the I.P.C. and instead of giving them any punishment, they have been given benefit under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is sufficient material on the record to convict the accused under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and secondly, it is not a fit case in which the accused should have been given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial court has considered the evidence and has found 2 that the accused had no intention to kill and secondly, considering the age and antecedent of the accused, they have been granted the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. As such, no interference in the impugned judgment is required by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. In view of the decision in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh and another reported in AIR 1968 SC 707, I do not find any manifest illegality or the gross miscarriage of justice. The view taken by the learned trial court is also a probable view. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)