IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.430 of 2002 ========================================================== Ram Prit Rai, S/o-Chhote Lal, R/o-Bhattatola, P.S.-Muffasil, District-Katihar. .... .... Petitioner. VERSUS The State of Bihar ... .... Respondent. ========================================================== . CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 17th October, 2001 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 8/94 by which the judgment and order dated 06.01.1994 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Class in G.R. No. 295/1993/Tr. No. 494/94 convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 392 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 411 I.P.C., both the sentences to run concurrently, has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.03.1993 at about 9.45 A.M. the informant Branch Manager of the Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hatlaganj, Katihar was going towards the Bank by Motorcycle, when he reached near Sarifganj Railway Gumti, two young boys stopped his motorcycle and looted it at the point of fire arms. The informant asked to give Patna High Court CR. REV. No.430 of 2002 dt.19-10-2011 2 the bag which was kept in the dikki of the motorcycle but both the accused refused and boarded on motorcycle and fled away. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against two accused Ram Prit Rai, petitioner and Anwar Mian. After trial both of them were found guilty and the petitioner was convicted under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C. and another accused Anwar Mian was found guilty under Section 392 I.P.C. Both of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 392 I.P.C. and the petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 411 of the I.P.C. Both sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 08/1994 and Anwar Mian filed Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1994. Both the appeals were heard together and were dismissed by the impugned order upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the occurrence has taken place on 25.03.1993. More than 18 years have passed. Petitioner has been suffering from mental agony. He has also been in custody for about a year. He has no criminal antecedent. Petitioner is the first offender and for the ends of justice, the petitioner deserves modification in the sentence. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.430 of 2002 dt.19-10-2011 3 After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on the record, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The occurrence has taken place on 25.03.1993. More than 18 years have passed and the petitioner has also been in custody for about a year. Petitioner has been suffering from mental agony for this long period. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, the sentence of the petitioner deserves modification. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. With this modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 19th October, 2011 Kamlesh/NAFR (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)