IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1382 of 2007 1. PRABHU SINGH S/O SRI SANFUL SINGH 2. NAWAL SINGH @ NAWAL KISHORE BHAGAT S/O LATE RAM BRIKSH BHAGAT 3. SURENDRA SINGH SON OF SRI NAYAK SINGH 4. RAM NARESH SINGH SON OF LATE BASAWAN SINGH ALL R/O VILL. HASSANPUR DUMDUMMA, P.O. NANDLALPUR P.S. VAISHALI, DIST. VAISHALI. ---PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY ----------- 03 04.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed on their appeal being Cr. Appeal no.2/1995 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein was considered and dismissed upholding the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned trial Court (Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Hazipur) in Tr. No. 239 of 1994. It appears from the perusal of the judgment of learned trial Court that petitioners herein were found and held guilty under Sections 448/34 of the Penal Code. They were directed to be released on execution of bond(s) in terms of Section 3 of the probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Learned trial Court also imposed compensation at the rate of Rs. 125/- payable by each of the convicts. Learned lower appellate Court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, did not find any justification for interfering with the impugned judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned trial Court. While assailing the judgment and order of the two 2 Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioners herein were also charged under Section 427 of the Penal Code. Learned trial Court found the evidence deficient and as such they were acquitted of the said charge. It is, thus, contended that if the charge(s) under Section 427 has not been found to have been substantiated then directing of payment of compensation in terms of Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act is illegal. Section 5 of the Act reads as under:- “5. Power of Court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs.- (1) The Court directing the release of an offender under section 3 or section 4 may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay- (a) such compensation as the Court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and (b) such costs of the proceedings as the Court thinks reasonable. (2)The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1) may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code. (3) A civil Court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or recovered as compensation under sub-section (1) in awarding damages.” A bare perusal of the provision would show that the trial Court may direct payment of compensation for loss/injury caused to any person or by way of cost of litigation. Trial Court acting its own discretion can in appropriate case direct payment of compensation for the loss/injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence and/or as the cost of the proceedings. 3 This Court, therefore, is not in a position to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)