IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.301 of 2008 1. RAMADHAR MAHTO, 2. RAMBHAROSH MAHTO, 3. BUCHCHI MAHTO, 4. BIRBAL MAHTO AND 5. MUKHTAR MIAN ……. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR AND 2. NAGO DEVI …… Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 28.11.2008. This revision by the accused persons has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.2.2008 passed by F.T.C.II, Bettiah in Cr. Appeal No.138 of 2007 thereby the learned Fast Track Court upheld the order of conviction after modifying the sentence passed by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Champaran dated 30th May,2007 in Tr. No.96 of 2007. All the petitioners have been directed to be released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on entering into a bond of Rs.1,000/- with two sureties to maintain peace and be of good behaviour. It appears that the learned Magistrate through above judgment convicted the petitioners under sections 341, 342 and 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one month under section 341, one year under section 342 and one year under section 323 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default further undergo imprisonment for one month. However, the learned Fast Track Court while confirming the conviction set aside all the sentences awarded against the petitioners and directed them to be released under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. - 2 - N.H./ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the judgment of both the courts. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is quite apparent that the case is based on evidence of two witnesses. Both the witnesses have been fully relied upon by both the courts. There is no scope to re-evaluate the evidence of the witnesses under revisional jurisdiction. The learned Fast Track Court has also rightly directed the petitioners to release under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as sentences under all the sections under which the petitioners have been sentenced are punishable with much less than seven years. Under the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is hereby rejected. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )