IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.555 of 2011 RAM PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE PUNIT LAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AKAUNA, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the State : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, APP ----------- 04. 20.06.2011 After hearing the parties, this Court is satisfied that the matter requires consideration only on the question of sentence. Hence RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Sasaram, Rohtas, vide trial no.515/03 for the charge(s) punishable under section 408, 420,467,468 and 471 IPC and convicted thereunder for diverse periods with fine having default clause(s) by judgment and order of conviction dated 27.09.2003. The maximum sentence to undergo R.I. for three years besides fine has been awarded under section 408 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, he preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 68/2003. The appellate court on a reappraisal of the evidence on record concurred with the finding of guilt recorded by learned trial court and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 18.05.2010. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence, in the present case, had taken placed sometime in the year 1995 for which FIR was lodged in the year 1998 which gave rise to the aforesaid trial. It is submitted by the time the trial court could pass the judgment and order of conviction, he had already superannuated from service. The trial court has, thus, assessed his age as 59 years. It is submitted that the trial consumed more than five years and during this period the petitioner had to suffer the rigours thereof which had adverse impact(s) on his mental and economical condition which is a shade of punishment. It is submitted that the appeal thereafter remained pending for five years. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody at least for two years and eight months by now. On these facts, it is submitted that petitioner deserves lessor quantum of sentence. Learned APP, on the other hand, supporting the judgment(s) submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal. I have heard the parties and perused the two judgments impugned in the present case. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1995 and trial court ultimately held him guilty by judgment and order dated 27.09.2003. For close to six years, the petitioner had to undergo rigours/ordeal of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that this is a shade of 3 punishment which has to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). It further appears from the trial court judgment that a submission was made that the petitioner is an aged person and there was no past conviction recorded against him. Having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from records, this Court is satisfied that a lessor quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the conviction recorded by learned trial court under section 408 IPC is reduced to R.I. for two years and nine months. This Court is further persuaded to set aside the imposition of fine under section 408,420,467, 468 and 471 IPC as imposed by learned trial court and duly affirmed by the learned appellate court. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. Let this order be communicated through fax on depositing appropriate cost by the petitioner. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )