IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1887 of 2009 MOHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2 9.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prefers this revision application against the judgment and order 14.9.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Cr.Appeal no. 19/2009, by which he has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.1.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1819/03, trial no. 1050/09 by Sri Manoj Shankar, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, by which petitioner was convicted under sections 498(A) and 323 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. three years under section 498(A) and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under section 323 IPC with a direction to serve out sentences concurrently. Petitioner was also sentenced a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under section 498(A) IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further to undergo three months R.I. Some ceremony allegedly performed to which petitioner never gave any consent nor agreed, giving that a colour of marriage, the complaint petition was filed making allegation of demand of dowry and torture for its non-fulfilment including a separate offence of assault, only to accept the act as marriage. However, the trial court as well as the appellate court passed their concurrent order about commitment of offence under sections 498 A and 323 IPC. According to learned counsel, 2 petitioner remained in custody since 29.6.2005 to 21.2.2006 and since 14.9.2009 till today. Now the petitioner prefers to press the sentence only awarded to him by the trial court with further submission to conclude the period undergone by him sufficient towards sentence to which also I agree under discussed suggested circumstance. This revision application is partly allowed and the sentence is modified and minimized to the period undergone by petitioner for both the offences as they were to run concurrently exonerating to fine also. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained and the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is confirmed for the rest. The petitioner, who is in custody, is directed to be released in the aforesaid case, if not wanted in other case. Let this order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioner. A.I (Mandhata Singh, J.)