IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1190 of 2008 1. SADANAND PRASAD 2. ANAND KUMAR BOTH SONS OF LATE KHARAG RAM RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MAIN BAZAR BARBIGHA, P.S.- BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 2 23.06.2010 This application in revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.7.2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Sheikhpura in Cr. Appeal no. 119/07/10/07 whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Section 440 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. The matter was carried in appeal. Learned Appellate Court on reevaluation of the materials on record found as under in paragraph 10: “From the evidence of the I.O I find that the wall was in dispute and claimed by the accused and the informant but the accused persons had no right to demolish the wall unless and until it was decided in his favour. The accused persons had demolished the wall which was old one and the witnesses have supported the fact that the appellants persons with the help of other persons demolished the wall and put the informant in a loss of Rs. 2,500/-. From the evidence it is not proved that the accused persons had made preparation to cause hurt to the informant prior to the demolition of the wall, so the offence U/S 440 of the I.P.C. is not proved. From the evidence available on the record, it is well established that the appellants had demolished the wall and caused damage of Rs. 2,500/- to the informant. In this way I find that the appellants committed an offence punishable U/S 427 of the I.P.C. since the appellants and the informant are the descendant of the 2 same ancestor and both the parties claimed the land and the boundary as stated by the I.O. So considering the nature of the offence which they have committed I do not want to award them substantive punishment for offence u/s 437 I.P.C.. They are ordered to be released U/S 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition. The appeal is allowed with the modification in the sentence as stated above.” It appears that the petitioners herein have been released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition. Learned counsel submits that in view of the provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioners have no cause of action to pursue the present application. The application is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )