IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1391 of 2008 1. LAXMI PANDIT SON OF LATE MAKHAN PANDIT 2. BHUSHAN PANDIT @ BHARAT BHUSHAN 3. DEORAJ PANDIT @ DEORAJ BHUSHAN 4. BRAJESH PANDIT @ BRAJESH KUMAR 5. NITISH KUMAR @ NITISH PANDIT. NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE SONS OF LAXMI PANDIT ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KALYANCHAK, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTRICT- MUNGER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, APP ----------- 2 23.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners herein assail the appellate order dated 26.8.2008 passed in Cr. Appeal no. 150 of 2007 whereby the same has been allowed in part. Petitioners were charged under Sections 341/34, 323/34 and 504/34 IPC. In addition thereto, petitioner nos. 3 and 5 were charged under Sections 379/34 IPC. They were put on trial. O5 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On a consideration of the evidence brought on record including the injury sustained by P.W. 1 (father of the informant) and P.W. 2( informant), learned trial court found and held them guilty under Sections 341/34,323/34 and 504/34 IPC. Petitioner nos. 3 and 5 were also found guilty under Section 379/34 IPC. In stead of awarding a substantive punishment for the proved charges, they were given the benefit of the provisions contained under the Probation of Offenders Act and were released. Learned appellate court re-scanned the materials on 2 record and came to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charge punishable under Sections 504/34 IPC. So far as charge under Section 379 IPC against petitioner nos. 3 and 5 are concerned, it was found that the prosecution has also not been able to prove the same. The appeal was, therefore, allowed in part. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order. It appears from the two judgments that petitioners have already been released after giving benefits of provision under Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that such release after having given the benefit of the provisions of the Act shall not be disqualification in terms of Section 12 of the said Act. So far as merit of the case is concerned, this Court does not find any illegality in the order meriting any interference. The application is accordingly disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )