Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1065 of 2002 In the matter of an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. =========================================================== Sunil Kumar Sadhu, son of late Murlidhar Sadhu, resident of Mohalla Janki Prasad Lane, Mundichak, P.S. Kotwali (Barari) in the District of Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opp. Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party/s : Mr. Matloob Rab, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-08-2012 Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The present revision application is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 11.09.2002 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2000 by which the judgment and order dated 06.12. 2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur in G.R. No. 2469 of 1994/ Tr. 340 of 2000, has been affirmed with some modification. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under [STATUTE] and one and a half years rigorous imprisonment under [STATUTE] . The appellate court has modified the said conviction inasmuch as the conviction under [STATUTE] has been set aside whereas the conviction under [STATUTE] has been upheld but the sentence modified to six months rigorous imprisonment. Earlier the case was admitted to hearing on the question of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already spent more than a month in custody and is advanced in age. It is further submitted that though the allegation is of cheating but the prosecution failed to produce any material to show as to how and to whom the petitioner is alleged to have sold the land which was initially to be sold to the informant. It is further submitted that the appellate court has noticed that the money taken as advance for such sale was returned to the informant and thus the conviction under [STATUTE] was set aside. However, the appellate court has upheld the conviction under [STATUTE] on the ground that the petitioner had cheated the informant by not getting the sale deed executed in his favour. Learned counsel submits that once the informant had taken back the money Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1065 of 2002 dt.14-08-2012 3 and that too since it was he who had not fulfilled the stipulation of making payment in time, the conviction cannot be sustained. After going through the trial court as well as appellate court judgments and the lower court records, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction. However, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified to the period already undergone in custody. Accordingly, this revision application stands disposed off without interfering in the order of conviction while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is discharged of the liabilities of his bail bonds and sureties. Patna High Court Dated 14th August, 2012 NAFR/Anjani/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.