IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1324 of 2010 1. SATYENDRA NARAIN PANDEY 2. MADAN MOHAN PANDEY …PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners: Mr.Manan Kr. Mishra, : Mr.Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.& : Mr.Awanish Kumar Pandey For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 02. 08.09.2010 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, the application is now being disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with respect to an occurrence that had taken place on 31.07.1992, they were tried and convicted by learned trial court by judgment and order dated 13.10.1999, whereby they were found guilty under section 379 IPC and 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and were sentenced to undergo RI. for one year under both counts. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned trial court, petitioners filed two appeals being Cr.Appeal No.109/41 of 1999/2004 and Cr.Appeal No.112/7 of 1999/2004. Both the appeals were heard analogously and by a common judgment dated 15.06.2010 they have been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence had taken place on 31.07.1992. The allegation is that 2 petitioners were found committing theft of energy by hooking. Petitioners were made to undergo the agony of trial for about seven years. They had to fight the criminal appeal which consumed about ten years. It is submitted that learned trial court has also found that they were the first offenders/convicts. It is the submission of the counsel that fighting a criminal litigation for such a long time is a shade of punishment which has to be borne in mind while inflicting sentence(s) on the accused(s) for the proven charge(s). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, supported the impugned order. It is submitted that both the courts below have appraised the prosecution evidence in right perspective and they do not call for any interference. I have heard the parties. It appears that for about seven years petitioners were made to fight the proceeding and thereafter it consumed about ten years in disposal of the case. Petitioners have thus suffered enormously. These factors require to be kept in mind while imposing sentence. I am thus satisfied that a lessor punishment shall subserve the cause of justice. Consequently, the sentence(s) recorded under section 379 IPC and section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act is/are reduced to R.I. for three months. With this modification in sentence(s), the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )