IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.893 of 2002 ================================================== Mahabir Prasad, son of Sideni Sao, resident of village-Dhibra, P.S.- Obra, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Vishwanath Prasad, son of Shivdani Sao, resident of village- Dhibra, P.S.- Obra, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saket Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, Add.P.P. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Cr. Appeal No.71/1987/62/1997 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No.329/1981, Trial No.3/1987 convicting and sentencing the accused for six months each under Sections 323 and 427 of the I.P.C. and one year under Patna High Court CR. REV. No.893 of 2002 dt.16-12-2011 2 Section 324 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been suffering from mental agony for the last 30 years. The date of occurrence is 11.06.1981 and the petitioner has also remained in custody for about two weeks. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is also more than 60 years. The petitioner should have been given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act by the learned court below. He has also submitted that there is a case and counter case for the same occurrence. The petitioner has also lodged a case against the complainant in which he has also been convicted for two years. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on the record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The petitioner has been suffering from mental agony for more than 30 years. He has also Patna High Court CR. REV. No.893 of 2002 dt.16-12-2011 3 remained in custody for some time. Considering the facts and circumstance, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period undergone in custody. With this modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 16th of December, 2011 N.A.F.R./V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)