IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1123 of 2011 Manindra Mishra, son of Chhedi Mishra, resident of village- Sultanpur, P.S.-Kateya, District- Gopalganj. Versus The State of Bihar ----------- 2. 09.09.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Criminal Appeal No.60/10 by which the judgment and conviction dated 15.09.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Gopalganj in Trial No.1684/10, G.R.No.2202/08 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed with modification in the sentence. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 4.10.2008 at about 7.00 P.M., the informant Tuntun Sah received an S.M.S. followed by a telephonic call demanding a ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-. On asking, the caller disclosed his name as Manindra Mishra (petitioner) of Sultanpur Sakin. He threatened of Mahatam Seth’s consequence, in case of non-payment. The call came from Mob.No.09753628919. Again on 6.10.2008, the accused repeated the same thing on mobile. This time call was made from the Mobile 2 No.09981579987. The informant is a small businessman. He became fearful that he may be murdered. Hence, written information was filed to the police station. Thereafter, Bhore P.S.Case No.168/08 dated 10.11.2008 under Sections 384, 385 and 387 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. After cognizance, the case was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate. The charge was framed under Sections 384, 385 and 387 of the I.P.C. and after the trial, the accused petitioner was held guilty under Section 387 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No.60/10 against that order, which was dismissed with modification in the sentence to the extent that the period of the imprisonment has been reduced to two years and the fine has been reduced to Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 6.10.2009 and 3 remained in custody for about one year eleven months and three days. The petitioner has almost served the sentence as modified by the appellate court. He has further submitted that this petition may be disposed of at this stage itself. Learned counsel for the State has got no objection. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves modification in the sentence. The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. With this modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Let this order be communicated to the learned trial court at the cost of the petitioner. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)