IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.588 of 2010 HARENDRA KUMAR RAUT SON OF LATE UMACHARAN RAUT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAKLOKMAN, P.S.- DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha, Sr. Advocate. ----------- 3 21.06.2010 Rule is confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice. Lower court records have already been called for and received. Heard both sides. With the consent of the parties, this matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Petitioner is facing the present criminal proceeding since 1975 when on 5.5.1975 an F.I.R. appears to have been lodged against him with the allegation that on the strength of a confessional statement made by one Laxmi, the godown belonging to the petitioner was searched and 12 bags of N.P.K. (Fertilizer) was/were recovered from the said godown. According to the prosecution, the fertilizers seized from the said godown were made of Germany and the same was booked from Calcutta for delivery at Nepal (Raxaul). Learned Trial Court, on consideration of the materials on record including the evidence of seven (07) prosecution witnesses, found and held him guilty under Section 3 R.P. (U.P.) Act and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further 2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred appeal vide Cr. Appeal no. 160 of 1985. Learned Lower Appellate Court (Addl. Sessions Judge-F.T.C.V, Samastipur) by its judgment dated 28th January, 2010 dismissed the same without any modification in sentence. While assailing the two judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner made elaborate submissions. This Court finds that as many as sever (07) witnesses examined in the case have supported the prosecution case. In fact, recovery of stolen fertilizers from the godown of the petitioner is not in dispute. Learned Appellate Court upon revaluation of the evidence on record found in paragraph 14 of its judgment as under: “In the result, I am of opinion that the judgement and order passed by learned lower court is liable to be confirmed and it has no illegality or infirmity. Accordingly appeal is dismissed and the judgement and order dated 23.9.1985 by learned lower court is hereby confirmed. Let a coy of this order be immediately sent to learned lower court for serving out the sentence.” This Court finds no infirmity in the said findings recorded by the learned two courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that considering the fact that the petitioner is facing the present criminal proceeding since last 35 years, a lenient view may be taken so far as imposition of sentence is concerned. It is next contended that fighting a long litigation is itself a punishment. Learned counsel further highlights that admittedly the petitioner 3 does not carry any criminal antecedent. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, has, however, supported the impugned judgments and orders of conviction recorded by the learned two courts below. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner has some force. Fighting litigation for such a long time is a relevant consideration to be kept in mind while imposing sentences(s). Considering the aforesaid fact that the petitioner has been fighting the present litigation since last 35 years, this Court is of the view that a lenient view in so far as sentence is concerned, shall sub-serve the ends of justice. Consequently, this Court reduces the sentence awarded under Section 3 R.P. (U.P.) Act from two (02) years rigorous imprisonment to one (01) year rigorous imprisonment. No interference is made so far as imposition of fine with the default clause is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to a period of one year rigorous imprisonment. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )