MADHURI KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Criminal Appeal No.3/01 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.1998 under Section 20 of Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sherghati at Gaya in Forest Case No.146/90, Trial No.34/98 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.11.1990, Forest Officials were performing checking work at Banke Bazar Forest Check Naka and they stopped one Ambassador car and on search Katha biscuits weighing 90 K.Gs. kept in four bags in dickey of Car were found being transported without transit permit and four accused persons including the petitioner were arrested and others managed to escape and the convict and others could not produce any paper of katha and Car and office report and seizure list were prepared on the spot and they were arrested and remaining four accused persons fled away. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken against all the accused including the petitioner. The other accused absconded after getting bail. The petitioner has faced his trial and he has been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for six months under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act and six months R.I. under Section 20 of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984. Thereafter the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.3/01 against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act has been set aside and the conviction and sentence under Section 20 of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 has been affirmed by the impugned judgment and order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. The petitioner should have been granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The occurrence has taken place on 20.11.1990 and almost 21 years have passed. The accused petitioner has been suffering from mental agony and the sentence of the petitioner deserves to be modified. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The case is of the year 1990 and almost 21 years have passed. The accused petitioner has been suffering from mental agony and has also served the sentence for about one month. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is fit case in which the sentence of the petitioner should be modified. The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. With this modification in the sentence, this petition is dismissed.