( 2025:JHHC:27212 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1670 of 2019 Rajendra Mahato @ Rajendra Prasad Mahato, son of Khadu Mahato, aged about 44 years, resident of village Mamarkudar, P.O. Dudhigajar, P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro ...... … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Mahto s/o Basu Mahato resident of Vill-Mamarkudar P.O- Dudhigajar P.S-Chas(M), Dist.-Bokaro 3.Shankar Mahto s/o Late Mahanand Mahto resident of Vill-Mamarkudar P.O-Dudhigajar P.S-Chas (M), Dist.-Bokaro. 4. Sublal Mahto s/o Late Aklu Mahto resident of Vill-Mamarkudar P.O- Dudhigajar P.S-Chas(M), Dist-Bokaro. 5. Parmeshwar Mahto s/o Banmali Mahto resident of Vill-Mamarkudar P.O- Dudhigajar P.S-Chas(M), Dist-Bokaro. 6. Arun Mahto s/o Banmali Mahto resident of Vill-Mamarkudar P.O-Dudhigajar P.S-Chas (M), Dist.-Bokaro. 7. Vijay Kumar Mahto s/o Basu Mahto resident of Vill-Mamarkudar P.O- Dudhigajar P.S-Chas (M), Dist.-Bokaro ……….. Opposite Parties -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. ------ 5/ 09.09.2025: I.A. No. 11990 of 2019 has been filed for condoning the delay of 382 days in filing the revision petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not knowing about the judgment and in absence of the petitioner judgment has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge and in view of that such delay has occurred. He submits that delay of 382 days may kindly be condoned. 3. Learned counsel for the State has got no serious objection if the delay is condoned. 4. For the reasons stated in the I.A., delay of 382 days in filing the revision petition, is condoned. 5. I.A. No. 11990 of 2019 stands allowed and disposed of. 6. This petition has been preferred against the judgement dated 14.08.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. ( 2025:JHHC:27212 ) 2 109/2018 by which the learned Court has set aside the sentence dated 23.06.2018 passed in C.P. Case No. 252/2011, corresponding to T.R. No. 96/2017 by which learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class convicted the accused persons under sections 333/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for four weeks, however appellate court extended the benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 to the accused persons and directed to release the accused persons on furnishing bond for the amount of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety for the period of six months to keep the peace and good behaviour. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed this petition against the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge to restore the sentence as contained in order dated 23.06.2018 after setting aside order dated 14.08.2018. He submits that wrongly said order has been passed and the learned court has not appreciated the fact in correct perspective as such impugned order may kindly be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that said judgement was passed on 14.08.2018 and nothing contrary has been brought on record by the petitioner with regard to direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge and much time has already passed and in view of that this revision petition is fit to be dismissed. 9. Looking into contents of judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge it transpires that learned Sessions Judge found that accused persons previously were not involved in any other case and they were also not previously convicted in any other criminal case and all the accused persons have committed voluntarily causing hurt punishable under section 323/34 of the I.P.C which is not an offence of serious nature. The accused persons are ( 2025:JHHC:27212 ) 3 relatives and Gotias of the complainant/respondent no.2 who is the petitioner herein and in the light of those discussions the learned Sessions Judge passed order on the strength of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 10. There is nothing contrary on record to show that any mischief has been made by the accused persons. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-