JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Pradip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2003 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 91 of 2002, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 1362/1996, T.R. No. 2090/2002.

4. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under the same section.

5. From perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the present case was admitted vide order dated 29.04.2003 with a clear indication that this application will be heard on the question of sentence only and the petitioner was also directed to be enlarged on bail.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while advancing his argument on the point of sentence, has submitted that the incident of the present case is of 09.08.1996 and more than 25 years have elapsed from the date of occurrence. The petitioner on the date of his conviction i.e., 24.05.2002 was 36 years of age and as on date his age is more than 55 years. He further submits that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below do not reflect any previous conviction of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 09.08.1996 and was released on bail 23.08.1996 and thereafter, he has further remained in detention at the stage of filing of the present revision application and was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2003. He further submits that the present case was filed on 25.04.2003 and on that date, the petitioner was in custody and the Vakalatnama indicates that it was executed on 19.04.2003.

7. The learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner in the present case is that the petitioner was caught with certain iron articles while he was in the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. BRU-48 and he was caught by the security personnel. He submits that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 379 of IPC and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

8. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence of the petitioner be modified and limited to the period already undergone by him in judicial custody. He submits that if this Court finds it proper, some fine amount may be imposed and no useful purpose would be served after sending the petitioner to jail again after a long gap.

Arguments on behalf of the opposite party-State

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and there is no scope for re-appreciation of materials on record and coming to a different finding. He submits that in case, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner, some fine amount may be imposed as the petitioner was caught red handed with the articles. He also submits that at the time of apprehending the petitioner, the petitioner and the co-accused tried to run away and one of the persons of security personnel was also injured.

Findings of this Court

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on a written report of Security Officer, TISCO, West Bokaro, wherein it has been alleged that on 09.08.1996 on receiving confidential report, the informant and other Security Personnel went to check-post and w