Patna High Court - OrdersYadunandan Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 21 June, 2011IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     CR. REV. No.695 of 2011
                   YADUNANDAN RAM SON OF LATE MADHU RAM,
                   RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAJHWALIYA, P.S. VIJAIPUR,
                   DISTRICT GOPALGANJ
                                       ...PETITIONER
                               Versus
                   THE STATE OF BIHAR
                                        ...OPP.PARTY
                                           -----------


03.   21.06.2011On close perusal of the two judgments, this Court is

                   satisfied that the matter requires consideration only on the

                   question of sentence. Hence RULE.Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of

                   the State.Petitioner was prosecuted along with others for the

                   charge(s) punishable undersections 409and420/34IPC, vide

                   Trial No.135/2001. As per the case of the complainant, the

                   petitioner projected himself as the Branch Manager of Eagle

                   Housing Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.          The complainant on

                   being persuaded, opened an account in the name of his son and

                   deposited certain amount under fixed term deposit scheme. On

                   maturity, when the complainant went       to encash the amount,

                   neither the petitioner was found nor the company was located.

                   Accordingly, a complaint     was lodged. At least two witnesses,

                   including one of the depositors, supported the prosecution case.

                   On a consideration of entire evidence on record, learned trial

                   court by judgment and order dated 18.9.2001, held him guilty

                   undersections 409and420IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.

                   for three years under each count. Feeling aggrieved by the said2order of conviction, he preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No.

61/2001/23/2009 which ultimately was dismissed by judgment

dated 18.03.2011.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per

the prosecution case, the deposit was made in the year 1995.

Finding himself     cheated, the complainant was lodged by the

complainant in the year 1996. The trial consumed more than five

years. Thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal which also

remained pending for close to ten years. It is submitted that

fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of

punishment and, therefore, is a relevant consideration while

inflicting punishment for the proven charge(s). Learned counsel

further submits that from the trial court judgment it appears that

submission was advanced that petitioner had no previous

conviction to his credit. It is thus submitted that petitioner

deserves a lessor quantum of sentence.Learned APP supported          the two judgment and

submitted that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded

by two courts below which has/have not been demonstrated

either to be perverse and/or patently illegal.It appears from the submissions and materials on

record that petitioner had to undergo ordeal/rigours of trial for

about five years. During this period, petitioner must have

faced/undergone      several     agonizing       and   excruciating

experience/circumstance(s) having telling effects on his mental

and economic condition. It further appears therefrom that appeal3too remained pending for about ten years. Learned counsel for

     the petitioner is right in his submission that from the two

     judgments it does not appear that petitioner was previously held

     guilty for any criminal charge.Regard being had to the         aforesaid    facts and

     circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that a lessor

     quantum of sentence shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly,

     while upholding the judgment and order of conviction undersection 409and420IPC, the sentence awarded on the petitioner

     is reduced to R.I. for 18 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the

     sentence, if any, shall remain unchanged.With this modification in sentence only, the

     application is dismissed.( Kishore K. Mandal )
hr