IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.329 of 2010 1. YOGENDRA SINGH , S/O LATE GOVIND SINGH 2. BRIJ KISHORE SINGH , S/O YOGENDRA SINGH BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KURMAWA, P.S. – CHERKI, DISTRICT – GAYA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Dhruva Narayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. J.P. Singh, Adv. For the State: Mr. J.K. Singh I, A.P.P. 3/ 06.05.2010 This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2009 passed by Sri Ram Vinod Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge IInd, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No. 83 of 2009/99 of 2008 by which the learned court below has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.5.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gaya in G.R. Case No. 1857 of 1998 / Tr. No. 61 of 2008 whereby the petitioners are convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 452 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years each and pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to R.I. for 1 year each for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to R.I. for 1 month each for the offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of 3 month each and all the sentence were run concurrently. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the incidents of the same day there was case and counter case in between the parties. Parties were at litigating term. Title Suit and a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was pending. Purpose for entering the house of Samundri Devi was commitment of theft which is disbelieved, otherwise, Samundri Devi was found present on her door (outside the house), ignoring the same maximum sentence is awarded while petitioners were entitled for relief enumerated under Probation of Offender Act maximum to execute probation bond but now they remain in custody for a period of near about two months since their surrender before filing this revision petition on 5.3.2010. Learned counsel for the informant is also present in the case to justify the sentence but could not deny filing of counter case. Hence, pendency of Title Suit and acquittal of lady members of the family under the discussed circumstance, in my view, justify to observe the period undergone by petitioners sufficient towards their sentence. This revision petition is partly allowed on the point of sentence only. The period of sentence undergone by petitioners is observed sufficient towards sentence. The conviction is maintained with modification in sentence as stated above. The above named petitioners shall be released from custody, if not wanted in other case. Let this order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioners. Let L.C.R. be sent back to the court below. Praful ( Mandhata Singh , J.)