IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1100 of 2009 1. Sanjeev Kumar 2. Rajeev Ranjan Both sons of Shri Surendra Prasad, 3. Surendra Prasad son of Shri Ramashish Singh 4. Jatahu Kewat son of Late Khelawan Kewat All resident of village- Mustaffapur, P.S. Islampur, District Nalanda. … Petitioners. Versus. 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ramadhin Prasad, son of late Budhani Singh, Resident of village- Mustaffapur, P.S. Islampur, District – Nalanda. …. Opposite parties. ----------- 2. 15-07-2011 The accused- petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa (Nalanda) in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2006 by which the appeal has been dismissed with modification in the order of sentence dated 30.8.2006 passed by learned trial court in G. R. No. 325 of 2003, T. R. No. 763 of 2006 arising out of Islampur P. S. Case No. 54 of 2003. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.4.2003 at about 9 a.m., the informant Ramadhin Prasad (P.W.5) along with his son went to gram field bearing Khata No. 64, Plot No. 327, area 35 decimals in village Mustaffapur and 2 found that the accused petitioners along with five unknown miscreants were uprooting the gram crops. When the informant, P.W. 5, protested, the accused persons abused and threatened him. The accused persons committed the theft of gram crops and caused a loss of Rs.3000/- to the informant. An information to this effect was given to Islampur police station. Thereafter, after investigation charge was submitted against the petitioners and after trial the petitioners were held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 341, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 30.8.2006 passed in G. R. No. 325 of 2003, T. R. No. 763/2006 and the petitioners were sentenced to a simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 447 and 341 I.P.C. and they were further sentenced to a simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Cr. Appeal No. 23 of 2006, which has been dismissed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa vide order dated 28.4.2009 by which the conviction of the petitioners have been confirmed and they have been given the benefit under Section 3 3 of Probation of Offenders Act to be released after due admonition. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that non-examination of Investigating Officer has prejudiced the case of the petitioners. Neither theft article has been seized by the police nor produced before the Court. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that both the parties belong to the same family. Land in question was given in the share of the informant and the prosecution witnesses have stated and supported the prosecution case and they have been able to prove the place of occurrence. Non-examination of Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the order of learned trial court, it appears that five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Eye witness of the occurrence is the informant, P.W.5, who has specifically mentioned, plot number, khata number of the land in question from where the theft of gram crops has been committed by the petitioners. Non-examination of Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to either of the parties. 4 In the result, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed. kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)