IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1263 of 2009 Imteyaz Karim @ Aku Sharma, son of Late Haji Mohammad Yahiya, resident of Mohalla-Khan Bhadur Road, Jehanabad Town, District- Jehanabad. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Hussain, Engineer, son of Md. Faujdar, resident of Mohalla-Gaderiakhand, Jehanabad Town, District- Jehanabad. 3. Nagendra Prasad, son of late Ragu Nath Pd., resident of Mohalla-Main Road, Pathak Toli, P.S.-Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad. ……Opposite Parties With CR. REV. No.1264 of 2009 Imteyaz Karim @ Aku Sharma, son of Late Haji Mohammad Yahiya, resident of Mohalla-Khan Bhadur Road, Jehanabad Town, District- Jehanabad. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Sahabuddin @ Md. Sabuddin, son of Mohiuddin, resident of Mohalla-Khan Bahadur Road, Jehanabad Town, District- Jehanabad. ……Opposite Parties With CR. REV. No.1265 of 2009 Imteyaz Karim @ Aku Sharma, son of Late Haji Mohammad Yahiya, resident of Mohalla-Khan Bahadur Road, Jehanabad Town, District- Jehanabad. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Faraque Azam, son of Late Master Hazi Mohammad Ahiya, resident of Mohalla-Khanbhadur Road, Jehanabad Town, P.O./P.S./District-Jehanabad. ……Opposite Parties ----------- 2 2 12.09.2011 The complaint-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Jehanabad in Cr. Appeal Nos.82/06, 81/06 and 73/06, separately, by which the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class in Complaint Case No.519/09, Trial No.1276/06 has been set aside with modification in the order. All the aforesaid Criminal Revisions arise out of the same judgment and order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Trial No.1276/06, as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.08.2000 at about 9.00 A.M, the complainant-petitioner Md. Imetiyaz Karim was in his house. His brother Farooque Alam, brother-in-law Sabauddin, Nagendra Prasad, Plumber and contractor of Municipality and Hussain Engineer came there and called the complainant from his house and abused him which was protested by the complainant. Thereafter, they assaulted and complainant fell down. Even thereafter the complainant was assaulted. 3 The neighbours came there and saved the life of the complainant. The accused opposite parties fled away after threatening the complainant. The complaint case no.519/2000 was filed against all the accused. The reason for occurrence is that the brother and brother-in-law of the complainant wanted to keep Hussain Engineer in the house of the complainant, but the complainant did not agree. After inquiry, a prima facie case was found against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 452 of the I.P.C. After the trial, all the accused were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 452 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to simple imprisonment for ten days and a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 341, simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 and simple imprisonment for two years under Section 452 of the I.P.C. in case of default in payment of fine, all the accused were directed to serve sentence of one month simple imprisonment and all the sentences to run concurrently. Thereafter, the accused Md. Hussain Engineer and Nagendra Prasad filed Cr. Appeal No.82/06, the accused Md. Sahabuddin @ Md. Sabuddin filed Cr. 4 Appeal No.81/06 and accused Faraque Azam filed Cr. Appeal No.73/06 against the order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class in the aforesaid complaint case no. 519/2000, Trial No.1276/06. During appeal, the sentence of all the accused have been set aside for the offence punishable under Section 452 I.P.C. by the learned appellate court due to lack of evidence and the conviction under Sections 323 and 341 I.P.C. has been upheld and their sentence has been modified and they have been released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the appellate court should not have acquitted the convicts-accused or the offence punishable under Section 452 of the I.P.C. and they should not have been granted the benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel for the State submits that from perusal of the material on record, it appears that there was no convincing evidence for the offence punishable under Section 452 I.P.C. As such, the appellate court has 5 acquitted the convicts-accused for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the I.P.C. It has been found that the accused had no criminal antecedent. Considering the age, character and circumstances and trivial nature of the case, the accused have been granted the benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the trial court’s judgment as well as appellate court’s judgment, it appears that the contention of the learned for the State is correct. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. In the result, all these three revision applications are dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)