IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.753 of 2008 SUNITI DEVI …..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bhola Singh 3. Shiv Singh 4. Sushila Devi 5. Pushpa Devi ….Opposite parties ----------- 2. 16.12.2008. This revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.4.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur in G.R. Case No. 1776 of 1999 and T. R. No. 150 of 2008 thereby opposite parties have been convicted under Section 323, 341, 504/34 I.P.C. and instead of sentencing them at once they have been released under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below instead of sentencing the opposite parties has released them under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act in such nature of case. The offence is serious and heinous. However, on perusal of Section 3 of - 2 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 it is quite apparent that the court has power to release the convicts after due admonition if offences are punishable only upto two years or with fine. In this case, opposite parties have been convicted under sections 323, 341, 504/34 IPC. The maximum punishment is two years under Section 504 I.P.C. Thus, it is quite apparent that there is no illegality or impropriety in releasing opposite parties under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision application is rejected. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)