IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.598 of 2009 1. RAM CHHABILA SINGH 2. RAM SAKHA SINGH 3. AMAR SINGH 4. RAM KISHORE SINGH 5. CHOTELAL BAITHA …PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHALIGRAM SINGH …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2. 23.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25th October, 2008, passed on Cr. Appeal No.95 of 1999, whereby on a consideration of materials on record the substantive sentence imposed on them by learned trial court has been interfered with. The petitioners were directed to be given the benefit under section ¾ of Probation of Offenders Act. This order was passed having regard to the fact appearing from record indicating therein that both the parties were agnates and had fought over a trivial issue and allegations were not serious. It is admitted at Bar that pursuant to the order, the bond has already been executed period whereof has expired. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads as under: “Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under 2 section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.” In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with that part of the appellate court order whereby they were given the benefit under section ¾ of the Probation of Offenders Act. The application is accordingly disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )