IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1734 of 2009 RAUSHAN KHAN @ RAUSHAN KUMAR KHAN, son of late Foolkant Khan,resident of village- Parari,P.S.-Bangaon,Dist.-Saharsa. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 17-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 12-10-2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr.Appeal No.15 of 2009, by which he has dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10- 08-2009 and 11-08-2009 respectively passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saharsa in G.R.No.1830/2008, T.R.No.66/2009 whereby petitioner has been convicted under Section 392 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fined rupees five thousand to be paid to the informant. Prosecution case in brief is that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 26-10-2008 while the informant’s family members were sleeping after meal petitioner entered into his (informant’s) courtyard and a weapon was shown to the informant’s wife. Exhortation was made for rupees ten thousand with threatening to kill the informant’s son and due to that fear rupees ten thousand was handed over to the petitioner and thereafter threatening the informant petitioner disappeared from the place of occurrence and after conclusion of the trial petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court, which has been confirmed by the appellate court also for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of rupees five thousand. 2 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is triable by the Magistrate, so maximum punishment which can be awarded is three years. Informant is the petitioner’s villager, even Bataidar. There was some grudge for the same. So, he has falsely been implicated in the case. However, concurrent finding is there for conviction but the above circumstance can be taken into consideration for reducing the sentence that to the period already undergone as petitioner remained in jail custody since 01.11.2008 for a period of more than one year. Under the discussed and suggested circumstances I am also of the view that the period undergone by the petitioner can be observed sufficient for the sentence. Accordingly, this revision application is partly allowed, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period undergone exempting the liability of fine but conviction is affirmed. As the petitioner Raushan Khan @ Raushan Kumar Khan is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Let the order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )