IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1106 of 2009 Anwar Hussain , son of Md. Yusuf, resident of village-Raghunathganj, P.S.- Nabinagar, District- Aurangabad. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Narsingh Singh 3. Janki Singh 4. Chandrama Singh (All sons of Late Keshwar Singh, resident of village-Ratnua, P.S.- Nabinagar, District- Aurangabad) ----------- 2. 19.07.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 1.06.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, IInd class, Aurangabad in G.R.No.1354/2000, Trial No.290/2009 arising out of Nabinagar P.S. Case No.54/2000 by which the opposite parties have been held guilty under Sections 323 and 341/34 of the I.P.C. and instead of giving them any punishment, they have been released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Heard Mr. Abdul Mannar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the prosecution case, the occurrence took place on 22.08.2000 at about 7.00 A.M. All the accused persons came at the place of occurrence armed with Lathi 2 and assaulted him and asked the informant not to cultivate his land. On denial by the informant, who was assaulted by the accused with Lathi and when father of the informant came there to rescue his son, he was also assaulted by the accused persons and his left hand was fractured. This occurred due to l and dispute in which the informant already got the decree. On the basis of written report, Nabinagar P.S. Case No.54/2000 was instituted against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Charges have also been framed. During trial, five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and they have fully supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the accused have committed the offence in a planned way and they should not have been granted any leniency by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the accused petitioner. He further submits that it is their first offence and secondly more than nine years have passed during the trial and the accused have sufficiently penalized for their acts. 3 After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and have discussed and considered the evidence carefully. It appears that the occurrence has taken place on 22.08.2000 and the judgment has been passed on 1.06.2009 after about more than nine years and the accused have been suffering from mental agony. It further appears that it is their first offence and as such, they have been given benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dimissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)