IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1282 of 2010 JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, SON OF LATE LAXMI PRASAD R/O- MITRA CHAUK, BETTIAH, P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 23.09.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of parties, the application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. With respect to an occurrence taken place on 30.4.1990, petitioner was tried and convicted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. As per the allegation made by the informant (P.W. 3), the shop of the petitioner was searched. It is alleged that on the display board, 945 bags of salt was displayed whereas on verification, 974 bags of salt were found in the shop/godown. At the trial, four witnesses were examined who are said to have supported the case whereafter learned trial court on a consideration of the materials on record found him guilty under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 01 year vide order judgment and order dated 29.9.2007 passed in Tr. No. 69/07. The appeal preferred thereagainst being Cr.. Appeal no. 218 of 2007 was dismissed vide order dated 4.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly as per the allegation, the salt was in excess of what was displayed on the Board. It is contended that the witnesses 2 are government officials. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence, as per the case, had taken place on 30.4.1990. The petitioner was made to fight the litigation for about 17 years. On 29.9.2007, learned trial Court passed the order of conviction. Appeal remained pending for 02 years. Learned trial Court did not find it appropriate to release him under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act considering the submission of learned P.P. that he was involved in one such kind of occurrences on previous occasions as well. It is thus contended that considering the materials on record, the petitioner deserves a lesser sentence. Learned APP, on the other hand, supported the two impugned orders, it is contended that the petitioner has not been able to show any perversity in the judgment and order of the two courts below. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the party. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place on 30.4.1990. Trial of the petitioner consumed more than 17 years. For all these years, he had to undergo the agony of trial which surely tells upon the mental, physical and economical condition of a litigant. It cannot be denied that during these periods, the petitioners had to undergo several excruciating circumstances. This aspect of the matter needs consideration. Having regard to the materials available on record and after hearing the parties, I am satisfied that, a lesser sentence, in 3 the facts and circumstances of the case, would sub serve the ends of justice. Consequently, while upholding the judgment and order of conviction, this Court reduces the sentence from S.I. for 01 year to S.I. for 03 months. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )