IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1128 of 2011 Ramu Tanti @ Upendra Tanti S/O Chamru Tanti R/O Vill. Mohalla Sadipur, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Munger. ….Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …..Opposite Party ----------- 3. 14.09.2011 I.A.No.1925/2011 at flag ‘A’ has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in the filing this revision application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It appears that sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing this revision application has been explained. The delay is condoned. This application stands allowed. This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Criminal Appeal No.150/1999 by which judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.10.1999 passed by the learned trial court in G.R.No.1666/94, Trial No891/99 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to 2 simple imprisonment for one year under both the courts below and discharged the accused alongwith petitioner under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has further submitted that this petition may be disposed of at this stage itself. He has further submitted that there is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. He has referred paragraph no.12 of the appellate court’s judgment in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner is ready to keep his wife, but she is adamant not to live with him. He has also submitted that there are three children out of wedlock of the petitioner and the informant. All the children are living with the petitioner. He further submits that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and almost 16 years have passed. The accused petitioner has already suffered from mental agony and the sentence of the petitioner deserves to be modified. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner 3 is correct. The case is of the year 1994 and almost 16 years have passed. The accused petitioner has been suffering from mental agony and has also served the sentence for two and half months. The sentence requires to be modified. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith from the custody, if not wanted in any other case. With this modification in the sentence, this petition is dismissed. Let this order be communicated to the trial court through fax at the cost of the petitioner. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)