CRREV No.301 of 2002 Misc. Case No.6 of 2017 09.08.2017 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This misc. case has been filed by the petitioner for extension of time to comply with t he judgment dated 06.09.2011 passed by this Court in CRREV No.301 of 2002, so also to release him on bail. It appears that this Court vide judgment dated 06.09.2011 passed in CRREV No.301 of 200 2 while dismissing the revision petition directed that the petitioner be released under Sectio n 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one year on his executing a bond o f Rs.5,000/- with two sureties each for the like amount to appear and receive sentence when ca lled upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour an d the petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforesaid period subject to the condition that he shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (five thou sand) as compensation to the injured within a period of forty five days from the date of passi ng of that order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the conducting counsel has not in timated about the aforesaid order to the petitioner, the said order was not complied with by t he petitioner, for which N.B.W. has been issued against him and pursuant to the N.B.W. issued, the petitioner was taken to custody. In such premises, he submits to extend some more time to comply with the aforesaid order of this Court, so also to release the petitioner on bail. As it appears, the petitioner did not comply with the direction of this Court passed vi de judgment dated 06.09.2011 and, as such, the sentence having already revived and the petitio ner having taken to custody to undergo the sentence imposed, the prayer made in this misc. cas e for extension of time to comply with the said direction and also for release him on bail app ears to this Court to be misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner is undergoing the sentence im posed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioner have already reached its finality. Accordingly, this misc. case being devoid of merit stands dismissed. S.Pujahari, J. 2