IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1794 of 2010 1.Ram Bilas Manjhi son of Tekan Manjhi 2.Maheshwar Manjhi son of Tekan Manjhi 3.Sone Lal Manjhi S/o Machhu Manjhi, all ar R/o village Siho P.S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur ……..Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar ………………… . Opposite Party. -------------- For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Parasmani, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, A.P.P. 3 18.10.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Appeal No. 51 of 2008 by which the judgment and order dated 11 April 2008 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sonepur in R.P.F. Case no. 3 of 1989, Tr. No. 46 of 2008 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case is that on 22.6.1989 it was reported to the station master of Narayan Anant that train No. 506 DN was running and from FSLR some thief has broken the said lock and committed theft. On this report Narayan Anant P.S. Case No. 3 of 1989 was registered under section 3 R.P. U.P. Act and after investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. In the trial the petitioners were found guilty and they were sentenced to R.I. for one year under section 3 R.P.U.P. Act. After the trial the petitioner preferred appeal as Cri. Appeal No. 51 of 2008 which has been dismissed vide impugned order upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate. The main contention of the learned counsel for the 2 petitioners is that the occurrence has taken placed on 22.6.1989. More than twenty two years have passed and the petitioners have been suffering from mental agony. There are no materials on record to show that they have any criminal antecedent. They have also remained in custody for about two and half months. In the circumstances the sentence of the petitioner may be modified. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioners while opposing their prayer. After hearing the learned counsel of both the parties and on perusal of record it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct More than twenty two years have passed and they have also remained in custody for two and half months. They have no criminal antecedents. In the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is fit case in which the sentence of the petitioners can be modified. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, the sentence of the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone in custody. The above named petitioners are directed to be released from custody if not wanted in any other case. In the result this petition is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence. Let this order be communicated to the Railway Magistrate, Sonepur in R.P.F. Case no. 3 of 1989, through fax at the cost of the petitioners. M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) 3