IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.598 of 2009
1. RAM CHHABILA SINGH
2. RAM SAKHA SINGH
3. AMAR SINGH
4. RAM KISHORE SINGH
5. CHOTELAL BAITHA
...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. SHALIGRAM SINGH
...OPPOSITE PARTIES
-----------
2. 23.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties.
Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25th
October, 2008, passed on Cr. Appeal No.95 of 1999, whereby on
a consideration of materials on record the substantive sentence
imposed on them by learned trial court has been interfered with.
The petitioners were directed to be given the benefit under
section ¾ of Probation of Offenders Act. This order was passed
having regard to the fact appearing from record indicating
therein that both the parties were agnates and had fought over a
trivial issue and allegations were not serious.
It is admitted at Bar that pursuant to the order, the
bond has already been executed period whereof has expired.
Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads
as under:
“Removal of disqualification attaching to
conviction.-Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law, a person found guilty of an
offence and dealt with under the provisions of
section 3 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
2
section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the
original offence.”
In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with that part of the appellate court order whereby they
were given the benefit under section ¾ of the Probation of
Offenders Act.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
( Kishore K. Mandal )
hr