IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1698 of 2009 KRISHANA PRASAD S/O- LATE DWARIKA PRASAD, R/O- VILLAGE MARCHAHIA TOLA, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR BAZAR, DISTRICT- CHAPRA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 13 10.08.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Lower Court’s records have already been received. With the consent of parties, the application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the order this Court proposes to pass, there is no need to set out the facts leading to the present case in extenso. In respect of an occurrence that had taken place on 1.11.1996, the petitioner was proceeded against and tried by the learned Trial Court vide Tr. No. 150 of 2008 for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act. He was allegedly found in company of a person from whom certain railway property worth Rs. 115/- was/were recovered. At the trial, four P.Ws were examined. On consideration of the materials brought on record, learned Trial Court found and held him guilty under the aforesaid section and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 22 of 2008. The appellate court 2 rescanned the evidence on record and found that the judgment and order of conviction was passed on legal appraisal of the prosecution evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any relief to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial consumed more than 12 years. All these years, he was made to undergo rigours of trial. According to him, this is a shade of punishment which has to be borne in mind while inflicting sentence for the charges which have been proved at the trial. Referring to the order of the trial court, it is submitted that the petitioner has not been found to be previously convicted. Learned counsel further highlights that the petitioner, at the time of conviction, was found aged about 35 years. It is thus contended that the petitioner, for the charges proved at the trial, deserves a lesser punishment. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submitted that there is no illegality in the two orders passed by the learned two courts below and as such they do not merit interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about 10 months. Learned A.P.P., on perusal of the records concedes to the aforesaid submission. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials placed on record, this Court is satisfied that a lesser punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case shall meet the ends of 3 justice. The petitioner herein is thus sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner shall be released forth with if not required in any other case. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Let the office transmit the present order and the lower Court’s records to the court below with promptitude. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )