IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1953 of 2009 Bhuteshwar Pandit S/O Late Birbal Pandit R/O Vill.- Pokharia, P.S.- Banka, Distt.- Banka. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Saryug Pandit S/O Late Birbal Pandit R/O Vill.- Pokhariya, P.S.- Banka, Distt.- Banka 3. Shankar Pandit S/O Late Jahuri Pandit R/O Vill.- Pokhariya, P.S.- Banka, Distt.- Banka 4. Sudin Pandit S/O Yogendra Pandit R/O Vill.- Pokhariya, P.S.- Banka, Distt.- Banka 5. Yogendra Pandit S/O Late Birbal Pandit R/O Vill.- Pokhariya, P.S.- Banka, Distt.- Banka. ………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 2. 16.12.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Cr. Appeal No.76/2008 by which the conviction of the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been maintained, but their sentence have been modified and they have been directed to execute a bond under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they have assaulted the victim and the conviction has been upheld by the learned appellate court also, therefore, the sentence should not have been modified. 2 The learned counsel for the State submits that on perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court, it appears that the accused have no criminal antecedent and it was their first offence. Considering all these facts, the learned appellate court has modified the sentence and has directed the accused opposite parties to release on executing bond by giving them the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. The accused have no criminal antecedent. As such, the accused opposite parties have been given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment. 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.)