IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.816 of 2008 1. KAMALESH TIWARY @ KAMALESH KUMAR TIWARY SON OF GANGADHAR TIWARY, R/O- SIDHNATH GHAT, P.S.- BUXAR (T), DISTRICT- BUXAR. 2. JAY NARAYAN PANDEY, S/O- DURGA DATT PANDEY 3. DURGA DATT PANDEY, S/O- LATE RAM SEWAK PANDEY 4. NOS. 2 AND 3 R/O- SIDHNATH GHAT, P.S.- BUXAR (T), DISTRICT- BUXAR. 5. LALTU PATHAK, SON OF LATE SATYA NARAYAN PATHAK, R/O- VILLAGE NIYAJIPUR, P.S.- SIMRI, DISTRICT- BUXAR, AT PRESENT SIDHNATH GHAT, P.S.- BUXAR (T), DISTRICT- BUXAR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey No. 2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP For the informant : Mr. Rangnath Choubey, Advocate ----------- 3 13.09.2010 Heard counsels for the petitioner, the informant and the State. It appears that by the orders impugned, petitioner has been let off under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned appellate Court has re-scanned the evidence and found them unworthy of interference . There is thus concurrent finding recorded by the learned two courts below. Learned counsel at this stage draws attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which reads as follows: “12 Removal of disqualification attaching of conviction:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 30 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to a person who, after his release under Section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the 2 original offence.” This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )