IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1526 of 2010 MD.TALIB . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, APP ----------- 04 10.01.2011 Re.: I.A. No. 2078 of 2010: For the reasons disclosed in the interlocutory application and the submissions made in support thereof, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision application is hereby condoned. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner assails the judgment and order passed on their appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 83 of 1993 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge Araria whereby the appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence. With regard to an occurrence that was committed in the intervening night of 6/7 day of February1987. Petitioner was put on trial vide Tr. No. 699 of 1993 with the charge punishable under Sections 379, 411 of the Penal Code. Four witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution besides brining on record documents to prove the charge(s). On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial Court found and held him guilty under Section 379/411 of the Penal 2 Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years under Section 379 of the Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was inflicted on him under Section 411 of the Penal Code. Aggrieved thereby petitioner filed the aforesaid appeal. Learned appellate Court re-appraised the evidence and concluded that the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Court did not merit any interference. However, the sentence awarded on him under Section 379 of the Penal Code was reduced to R.I. for 01 year. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 411 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was disposed of without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to argue the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that conviction recorded under Section 411 of the Penal Code in the light of conviction already recorded under Section 379 of the Penal Code would not be permissible in law. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent finding of guilt so far as Section 379 of the Penal Code is concerned, which is based on appraisal of evidence on record which has not been shown to be perverse or patently illegal. Learned counsel for the State, however, concedes that in the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction recorded under Section 411 of the Penal Code would not be sustainable in law since petitioner has already been held guilty and convicted for the substantive offence punishable under Section 379 of the Penal Code. 3 I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears from the perusal of the appellate order that learned counsel representing the petitioner was present. It further appears that the appeal was preferred before the Court in the year 1993-94. Learned lower appellate Court in that view of the fact took up the appeal and after considering all aspects of the case/appeal as reflected in the memo of appeal disposed of the same. In view of the aforesaid fact appearing from record this Court is not satisfied that any illegality as such has been committed in disposing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be right in his submission that once the petitioner has been held guilty under Section 379 of the Penal Code for committing theft of the ox belonging to the informant he cannot be punished under Section 411 of the Penal Code. It is also contended that occurrence had taken place in the year 1987. Petitioner had to reel under the threat of being punished for more than 06 years. Thereafter the appeal remained pending for over a decade. It is not found from the trial Court’s judgment that he was earlier held guilty for any criminal offence. It is the stand of the petitioner that fighting a criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment which needs to be kept in focus while inflicting the sentence for the proven charge(s). It is seen from the trial Court’s judgment that the petitioner was found aged about 35 years. It can also be deciphered from the materials on record that the petitioner had to fight the litigation 4 for over 06 years. Having regard to the fact that petitioner has already undergone the rigours of trial for a long time and also keeping in view the age of the petitioner at the time of his initial conviction recorded by the trial Court, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case shall sub serve the cause of justice. Accordingly while upholding the conviction recorded under Section 379 of the Penal Code, the sentence awarded thereunder is reduced to R.I. for 06 months. For the reasons noted above conviction recorded under Section 411 of the Penal Code by the Court below is set aside. The application is allowed in part. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)