Sudhir Pathak @ Sudhir Kumar Pathak v. State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.780 of 2007 ====================================================== SUDHIR PATHAK @ SUDHIR KUMAR PATHAK, sosn of Late Dashrathh Pathak, resident of village Ramchadra Dih, Police Station Chakai, District Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

NONE For the Respondent/s :

Mr. APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-07-2017 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Bihar is present.

2. For an occurrence, said to have taken place on 10.07.1995, a complaint case was filed by one Sadanand Mishra, with the allegation that this petitioner and co-accused, Krishna Lal Mishra, removed 50 bamboos, standing over the plot of the complainant. Upon objection having been made, the accused persons became ready to assault. Thereafter, on cry for help having been made, few persons rushed there and, thus, some untoward incident could be avoided. The trial commenced after enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Sections 447, 379 and 323

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.780 of 2007() dt.21-07-2017 2/2 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court accordingly sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 06 months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 06 months for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The said finding of conviction has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. However, the sentence has been modified by giving the petitioner benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

3. No interference is required with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been given benefit of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

4. This is probably the reason why there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

5. This application is accordingly dismissed. Prabhakar Anand/- ( Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 25-07-2017 Transmission Date 25-07-2017