IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.695 of 2011 YADUNANDAN RAM SON OF LATE MADHU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAJHWALIYA, P.S. VIJAIPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPP.PARTY ----------- 03. 21.06.2011 On close perusal of the two judgments, 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. Petitioner was prosecuted along with others for the charge(s) punishable under sections 409 and 420/34 IPC, vide Trial No.135/2001. As per the case of the complainant, the petitioner projected himself as the Branch Manager of Eagle Housing Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. The complainant on being persuaded, opened an account in the name of his son and deposited certain amount under fixed term deposit scheme. On maturity, when the complainant went to encash the amount, neither the petitioner was found nor the company was located. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged. At least two witnesses, including one of the depositors, supported the prosecution case. On a consideration of entire evidence on record, learned trial court by judgment and order dated 18.9.2001, held him guilty under sections 409 and 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under each count. Feeling aggrieved by the said 2 order of conviction, he preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 61/2001/23/2009 which ultimately was dismissed by judgment dated 18.03.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution case, the deposit was made in the year 1995. Finding himself cheated, the complainant was lodged by the complainant in the year 1996. The trial consumed more than five years. Thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal which also remained pending for close to ten years. It is submitted that fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment and, therefore, is a relevant consideration while inflicting punishment for the proven charge(s). Learned counsel further submits that from the trial court judgment it appears that submission was advanced that petitioner had no previous conviction to his credit. It is thus submitted that petitioner deserves a lessor quantum of sentence. Learned APP supported the two judgment and submitted that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below which has/have not been demonstrated either to be perverse and/or patently illegal. It appears from the submissions and materials on record that petitioner had to undergo ordeal/rigours of trial for about five years. During this period, petitioner must have faced/undergone several agonizing and excruciating experience/circumstance(s) having telling effects on his mental and economic condition. It further appears therefrom that appeal 3 too remained pending for about ten years. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that from the two judgments it does not appear that petitioner was previously held guilty for any criminal charge. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that a lessor quantum of sentence shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and order of conviction under section 409 and 420 IPC, the sentence awarded on the petitioner is reduced to R.I. for 18 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence, if any, shall remain unchanged. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )