IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1023 of 2009 Bagesh Bhagat, son of late Badhan Bhagat, resident of village- Tankuppa, P.S.- Konch, District- Gaya. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Ashok Singh son of Ram Bilash Singh 3. Kundan Singh son of Ashok Singh 4. Pintu Singh son of Ajay Singh All are residents of village- Tankuppa, Police Station- Konch, District- Gaya. … Opposite parties. ----------- 4. 25.07.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 16th December 2008 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 173 of 2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya by which accused opposite parties have been directed to be released after due admonition under section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. Heard Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. It is submitted that on written information given by the petitioner (P.W. 6) to the Officer-in-Charge, Konch P.S. Case No. 9 of 2004 dated 30.1.2004 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 452 and 506/34 I.P.C. was registered. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.c. 2 After trial the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 I.P.C. and three months rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C.. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Thereafter the accused, opposite party nos. 2 to 4 filed Cr. Appeal No. 173 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge. By the impugned order learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the conviction of the accused but instead of giving any punishment to the accused, learned Sessions Judge has directed the accused to be released on due admonition under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused have committed offence and have brutally assaulted the informant as such the lower appellate court should not have modified/reduced the sentence. It is also submitted that accused are of criminal mind and as such they should not have been released on due admonition. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that there is no material on record to show that the accused have any criminal antecedent 3 as such the accused/convicts are entitled to be released under the Probation of Offenders Act. Learned Sessions Judge has given the benefit under the provision of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act for which the accused are entitled. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the judgment of learned trial court, it does not appear that accused/ opposite parties have any criminal antecedent. After considering the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge has directed the accused to be released under the provisions of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)