IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1663 of 2010 DHIRENDRA NATH GHOSH S/O RAMESH CHANDRA GHOSH ---- PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPP. PARTY For the petitioner : Mr. Helal Ahmad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 24.11.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 30th April,2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar in C.A. no. 1710 of 2004, whereby on a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution he was found guilty under Section 354 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence petitioner preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 23 of 2010. Learned lower appellate Court re-scanned the evidence of 04 prosecution witnesses as also other materials brought on record and concurred with the view taken by learned trial Court. Accordingly the appeal stood dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 22.08.2004. Petitioner was made to fight the criminal litigation for about 06 years when on 30.04.2010 the conviction was recorded. It is thus the contention that for 06 years he had to undergo the 2 rigours/ordeal of trial which is a shade of punishment. Referring to trial Court’s judgment it is submitted that he was found over 50 years of age at the time of conviction. It is further contended that petitioner is already married having children who are now grown up. It is submitted that admittedly no previous conviction was found and recorded by learned trial Court. It is next contended that there is no earning member in the family and as such the whole family has to suffer on account of his conviction and sentence. It is thus contended that considering all these aspects of the matter lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent findings of guilty recorded by two Courts below which have not been shown to be perverse or patently illegal and as such they do not require any interference. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Admittedly there is no past conviction recorded against the petitioner. It further appears that he was found over 50 years of age at the time of conviction. It is further seen from the record that for over six years he had to undergo the rigours/ordeal of trial. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time definitely has a bearing while sentencing a convict for the proven charge(s). Having regard to these aspects of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, while upholding the conviction 3 recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned lower appellate Court, the sentence of S.I. for 02 years recorded under Section 354 of the Penal Code is reduced to S.I. for 09 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence(s) shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)