CHHUTNI MAHTO Vs. BHAJOHARI MAHTO & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and as also learned counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.06.2000 passed by Sri S. K. Mishra, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikela in Cr. Revision No. 24 of 1998 whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order giving the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the opposite parties has been rejected by the revisional Court below.

(2.) IT appears that the opposite parties were made accused in G. R. Case No. 576 of 1995 wherein they faced the trial for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were convicted for the offence under Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code by Judgment dated 18.05.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saraikela. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the Trial Court extended the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the convicts and released them after due admonition. The petitioner challenged the said order releasing the accused O.Ps. after due admonition, in the Revisional Court below, which was also dismissed by the Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 16.06.2000.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that the accused O.Ps. were rightly given the benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, releasing them after due admonition.