IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.521 of 2011 DEVENDRA RAI @ DEBENDRA RAI, SON OF LATE JANAK RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BHAGWANPUR DESUA P.S. UJIARPUR, SAMASTIPUR …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr.Amit Kr. Mishra For the State :Mr. Asha Devi, APP ----------- 03. 20.05.2011 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of at this stage. Petitioner herein was put on trial vide trial no. 447/82 for charge punishable under section 3(A) of R.P.(U.P.)Act (for short ‘the Act’) with regard to an occurrence that had taken place on 23rd July,1977. On a consideration of evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samastipur vide judgment and order dated 20.7.1982 held him guilty under section 3(A) of the Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year besides imposition of fine having default clause. It further appears that an appeal was filed thereagainst vide Cr. Appeal No.216/1982. Said appeal remained pending for a long period. Ultimately, the appeal was heard and disposed of by order dated 31st of January, 2000. The appeal was partly allowed. Fine imposed by learned trial court was set aside, but substantive sentence was, however, upheld. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was made to fight criminal litigation for a long time. The occurrence had taken place in the year of 1977 and the trial concluded in the year 1982. Thereafter the appeal remained pending for about another 18 years. There is no past conviction found and recorded against the petitioner. Learned counsel, referring to the order dated 26.3.2011, submits that at the time of his surrendering pursuant to dismissal of appeal learned trial court assessed him close to 70 years. It is thus submitted that petitioner deserves a lessor quantum of sentence for proven charge(s). Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below. On a consideration of submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the two judgments, this court finds that there is no material on record to indicate that petitioner was earlier held guilty and convicted for any criminal charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submissions the trial of petitioner consumed close to five years whereafter the appeal preferred by the petitioner remained pending for about 18 years. For all these years, the petitioner had to undergo ordeal/rigours of trial. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is itself a shade of punishment. It further appears from order dated 26.3.2011 that learned Magistrate assessed the age of the petitioner close to 70 years. This Court is thus 3 satisfied that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves a lessor quantum of sentence. Thus, while upholding the conviction recorded by learned trial court and duly affirmed by learned appellate court, the sentence awarded on the petitioner under section 3(A) of the Act is reduced to R.I. for four months. Let it be recorded that petitioner has already deposited the fine amount. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )