IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1020 of 2011 Mahesh Ram, s/o Chanu Ram, resident of village- Mothaha, P.S. Minapur, Distt. Muzaffarpur. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Respondent. ----------- 2. 19.08.2011 The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No. 68 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order dated 15.5.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in G. R. No. 886 of 2000, Trial No.2013 of 2006 arising out of Minapur P. S. Case No. 83 of 2000 have been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that due to rash and negligent driving, the bus bearing registration no. BHF 8636 fell down in the ditch causing injury to the informant and other passengers. The bus was overloaded and the passengers were also sitting over the roof of the bus. On the fard beyan of the informant, Minapur P. S. Case No. 83 of 2000 dated 17.4.2004 was instituted against the petitioner for the offence punishable under 2 Sections 279, 337, 338 I.P.C. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. The case was transferred by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. After trial, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months each under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. and both the sentences to run concurrently. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 68 of 2006 which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 23.3.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this application may be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Learned A.P.P. for the State has got no objection. It has been submitted that witnesses have stated that road was in bad condition. The bus was overloaded and due to burst of a tyre accident took place. The petitioner has already been in custody since 28.4.2011. Out of four months sentence, the petitioner has already been in custody for three months and twenty one days. The petitioner should have been granted the benefit under Section 3 of Probation of 3 Offenders Act which has been denied. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. Learned A. P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing the leaned counsel for both the parties, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The sentence of the petitioner requires modification Considering the facts and circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already gone in custody. The petitioner is directed to be released. With the aforementioned modification in sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court of Sri N. K. Thakur, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in G. R. No. 886 of 2000, Trial No. 2013 of 2006, through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)