IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.951 of 2008 RAM KEWAL NONIA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7 9.1.2009 The instant revision application has been preferred against judgment dated 25.9.2001 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Cr. Appeal No.70/95 / 43/96 affirming the sentence vide Judgment dated 1.7.1995 passed in Excise Case No.34/93 ( Tr.No.197/95) by which the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for further one month. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is an illiterate person and as such he cannot prefer revision earlier in time. He submits that this Court by order dated 24.10.2008, in fact, granted bail to the petitioner during the pendency of this application. This Court by the same order posted this case to be considered on the question of limitation on the next date. In respect of condonation of delay the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered in the case of the State of Bihar Vrs. Janardan ; 2002 PLJR 231. In the aforesaid case, this Court condoned the delay of 31 months. In the aforesaid case this Court observed that the substantial justice should not be frustrated on the point of such technicality unless there is gross laches. As this Court normally would not have condoned the delay of such long delay but because of the fact that the petitioner has already been granted bail by a Bench of this Court on 2 24.10.2008 pending final hearing of the case. Further petitioner is suffering from pulmanary tuberclosis. Subsequently he was suffering from drug induced nepatic (liver) with jaundice w.e.f. 18.10.2001 to 12.6.2008. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court condones the delay in filing the application otherwise. As the parties agree that the writ application be disposed of at this stage perused the record and discussions made by the trial court as well as the appellate court. This Court does not find any ground for interfering with the impugned Judgment and order of conviction of the petitioner under section 47(A) of the Excise Act. So far as period of sentence is concerned it appears that petitioner has already remained in custody for about 8 months out of total period of one year. This Court is of the view that period already undergone is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.The sentence regarding fine will remain as it is. With the aforesaid modification in sentence this writ application is disposed of. Anilksinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)