CRIMINAL REVISION No.326 OF 2001 (Against the Judgment and order dated 07.04.2001 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 57 of1998/27 of 2001 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad) 1. RAM NANDAN NONIA, S/o late Ramchandra Nonia 2. Panna Lal Nonia S/o late Ramchandra Nonia 3. Ram Kishun Nonia S/o late Akalu Nonia 4. Duddeshwar Nonia S/o Ram Kishun Nonia 5. Lal Bahadur Chauhan @ Lal Bahadur Nonia S/o late Ramashis Jamadar, All R/o Vill. Kafarpur, P.S. Makhdumpur, District-Jehanabad ----------------------- (Petitioners) ---Versus--- 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rameshwar Nonia S/o Manru Nonia R/o Vill. Kafarpur, P.S. Makhdumpur, Dist. Jehanabad. --------------------(Respondents) -------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH Mandhata Singh, J. Heard both the parties. The revision application is filed against the Judgment and order dated 07.04.2001 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 57 of 1998/27 of 2001 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad arising out of Judgment dated 31.08.1998 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 303 of 1993 (Tr. No. 188 of 1998). In brief the allegation is to the effect that all the petitioners came to the field of the complainant when he was taking care of his maize crop in the field 2 and started plucking the maize crop. For petitioner no.1, it said that he slapped the complainant-opposite party no.2 also. Conviction for the offence under Sections 379, 147 and 323 of the I.P.C. is confirmed by the Appellate Court also and sentence for the offence under Sections 147 and 379 of the I.P.C. was reduced by the Appellate Court for the period of two months and one month rigorous imprisonment for all while petitioner no.1 was only punished for the further offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. which was also reduced for the period of one month. Now, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that incident, if any, took place in the year 1993. Petitioners were claiming 4 decimal of plot no. 415 total area of 15 decimal. There is no need to go into the controversy, if the claim was genuine because of the reason, that sentence is only pressed here. That is submitted to reduce to the period undergone on the above two reasoning that the petitioners faced trial since 1993 and they were claiming the land to be their own. Surrender Certificate which is order of the Trial Court dated 19.06.2001 is there that all the petitioners surrendered before filing of this revision on 19.06.2001 and the order sheet of the Lower Court goes 3 to show that the petitioners could be released only on 30.06.2001. In the facts and discussed circumstance of the case, I am of the view also that the period undergone by the petitioners is sufficient towards their punishment. With such modification on the point of sentence, petitioners’ revision application is dismissed. Accordingly, the above named petitioners are directed to be released forthwith. Patna High Court, 23rd December, 2009 Shail/N.A.F.R. ( Mandhata Singh, J.)