IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.790 of 2011 Sanjay Ram son of Late Ram Kawal Ram r/o Vill- Kathar, P.S. Krishna-Brahm, Distt- Buxar. … Appellant/Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Respondent/Opp. Party ----------- 3. 06.09.2011 The accused- petitioner preferred this revision application against the impugned judgment and order dated 25th March 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C V, Buxar in Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2009 by which the judgment and order dated 16.3.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Case No. 10(0)/2007, Trial No. 372/2009, has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.5.2008 at about 4 P.M. after getting information the Officer-in-Charge with excise constable make a raid in the house of the accused-petitioner and found the material for preparation of country made liquor. Some of the materials were destroyed and some were seized. After enquiry the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 47(a) and (f) of the Excise Act. Accordingly, the charges were framed under the aforesaid sections. After trial, the petitioner was held guilty under Section 47(a) of the 2 Excise Act and he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- and in case of non-payment of fine simple imprisonment for 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2009 which has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court has been confirmed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no material on record to show that the accused- petitioner has any criminal antecedent and his sentence may be modified. The petitioner has been in custody for about three and half months. The learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is no material on record to show that the accused has any criminal antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is a fit case 3 in which the sentence should be modified. The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. To this extent, the sentence of the petitioner is modified. The petitioner is directed to be released from custody forthwith, if he is not warranted in any other case. In the result, this application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court through fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)