IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1415 of 2010 1. RAM CHANDRA SAH SON OF JAINATH SAH 2. PAWAN KUMAR PRASAD SON OF RAMCHANDRA SAH BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASOPATTI, P.S.- BASOPATTI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 2 24.09.2010 I.A. no. 1940 of 2010 Heard both parties. It appears that the delay involved is less than 10 days. For the reasons disclosed in the application and submissions made in support thereof, the interim application (I.A. no. 1940 of 2010) is allowed. Delay is condoned. With the consent of the parties, the main matter has also been taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14th June, 2010 passed by learned Addl.. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III Madhubani in Cr. Appeal no. 15 of 1991/136 of 2008 whereby the judgment and order dated 21.5.1991 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani has been affirmed. Two petitioners have been tried and convicted under Sections 323, 337 and 448 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. 2 for 01 month under each count.. They were tried for an occurrence that had taken place on 7.4.1986. The trial consumed close to five years. Their appeal remained pending for more than 19 years. Learned trial Court in the order impugned has noticed that there is no previous conviction recorded against them. Considering all these aspects of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the sentence of S.I. for 01 month under each head should be reduced to S.I. for 15 days under each head. Consequently the sentence of S.I. for 01 month under Sections 323, 337 and 448 of Indian Penal Code is reduced to S.I. for 15 days under each head. Other part/condition of sentence passed by the learned trial court shall remained unaltered/untouched At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the allegation part and the evidence brought in support thereof. Considering the petty nature of the allegation, this Court observes that the sentence so awarded shall not be treated as disqualification so far as petitioners are concerned. The revision application is accordingly disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )