IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1300 of 2011 Rustam Ali son of Tosleem Ansari resident of village Shekhi Chakiya, P.S. Chakiya, District East Champaran. … petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opp. Party. ---------------------------------- 3. 07.12.2011 The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IV, Bettiah in Cr. Appeal No. 72 of 2010 by which the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.8.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in G. R. Case No. 2720 of 2009 and Tr. No. 1217 of 2010 has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed. It is submitted that the accused including the petitioner were apprehended by the police after getting the information that some persons have snatched the purse of the informant and they disclosed their name as Rustam Ali (Petitioner) and Vijay Kumar. On their search one Khukhari and a purse containing Rs.370 and two identity card one issued from the election department and another from police department were recovered from the possession of Rustam Ali. One khukhari was also 2 recovered from the possession of co-accused Vijay Kumar. Seizure list was prepared on the spot. Both the accused disclosed the names of his other associate who had managed to escape as Ranjit Das @ Bipin. On the basis of the statement of the informant Bettiah Town P. S. Case No. 312 of 2009 was registered under Section 392 and 411 I.P.C. against the aforesaid two accused. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against both of them. Cognizance was taken. Charges were framed. After the trial both of them were held guilty and they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 392 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 411 I.P.C. and in case of default in payment of fine one month further simple imprisonment. Both the sentences to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he should be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner has been in custody since the date of occurrence i.e. 19.10.2009. Thus, he has 3 remained in custody for more than two years. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of robbery and the petitioner has been arrested on the spot and the stolen articles have also been recovered from his possession, as such the petitioner does not deserve any benefit under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the petitioner has been apprehended on the spot and the stolen articles have been recovered from his possession. There is concurrent finding of both the courts below and in such circumstances the petitioner does not deserve the benefit under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than two years. There is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is a fit case which the sentence should be modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone in 4 custody and a fine of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- in Nazarat Civil Court, Bettiah and will file a receipt thereof before the learned trial court in G. R. No. 2720 of 2009, T. R. No. 1217 of 2010. Thereafter, he will be released from the custody, if not wanted in any other case. If the money is realized, it will be payable to P.W. 6, Jitendra Kumar, the victim of the occurrence. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this petition is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)