IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1937 of 2009 Lalan Rajak S/O Late Sobharam Rajak R/O Moh.- Dr. N.C. Gosh Lane, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt.- Patna—Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Manidhar Rajak S/O Ram Sawroop Rajak R/O Gooshala Road, Ward No.-4, P.S.- Mokama, Distt.- Patna 3. Ram Swaroop S/O Late Bihari Rajak R/O Gooshala Road, Ward No.-4, P.S.- Mokama, Distt.- Patna----Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 2 19.12.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 21.7.2009 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2007 by which the conviction of opposite party nos.2 & 3 has been confirmed but the sentence of the accused persons for two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code has been modified and they have been set at liberty after giving the benefit under section 3 of the Probation of Offender Act. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused were convicted and sentenced for two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- by learned Sib-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2001 passed in G.R. Case No. 3785 of 1997 (Trial No. 61 of 2001). Thereafter accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2001 by which the conviction of accused has been upheld but the sentence which has been modified giving the benefit under section 3 of the Probation of Offender Act is not in accordance with law. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel opposite parties and also perused the impugned order. 2 It appears from perusal of the judgment of the trial court that accused have no criminal antecedent and the occurrence has taken place in the year 1996 and considering this fact learned appellate court has taken a view that the opposite parties are entitled to get the benefit under section 3 of the Probation of Offender Act as the appellants have been suffering from mental agony for the last 13 years. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. RPS ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)