IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.460 of 2011 BASKI KUMAR SON OF LATE BANBARI KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SAHTHA, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ….PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. …….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 03. 28.04.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner herein was put on trial vide T.R. No. 155 of 2000 for the charge(s) punishable under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act. Eight witnesses were examined besides exhibiting documents to prove the charge(s). On a consideration of the matter, learned trial court (Judicial Magistrate First Class Kiul) found the petitioner guilty under the aforesaid charge and sentence to under go R.I. for 1 year. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner preferred appeal no. 167 of 2000. Learned appellant court confirmed the findings of guilt and dismissed the appeal. It is submitted that at the time of conviction petitioner was found aged about 60 years. Occurrence, as per prosecution case, had taken place on 26.12.1987. The trial of the petitioner consumed closed to 13 years. Referring to judgment, it is submitted that there is no past conviction recorded against him. It is thus submitted that the petitioner deserves lesser quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, submits that there 2 have been concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the court below, which cannot be said to be perverse and/or illegal. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the trial court consumed more than 13 years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment as during these periods the litigant has to suffer the rigorous/ordeal of trial and also to face several excruciating circumstances having telling effects on the economical as well as mental condition of the litigant. He is further right in his submission that no previous conviction was found and recorded. It appears that at the time of recording conviction he was assessed 60 years of age. Such assessment was made in the year 2000. We are in the year 2011. Obviously petitioner is over 70 years of age. This Court is, thus, satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial court and duly affirmed by the lower appellate court the sentence awarded thereunder is reduced to R.I. for 04 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Devendra/ ( K.K. Mandal, J.)