Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The petitioner along with Santosh Thakur on being tried by Sri P.C. Gupta, Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, suffered conviction under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and while they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence was passed under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. It means that out of two victims only Bholi Mandal, the petitioner in this revision, carried the matter in appeal before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani when the finding recorded by the trial court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed and it is how that this revision is before this Court. 2. Shorn of details, the basic facts on which the trial commenced against the petitioner and one Santosh Thakur was that on 5th October, 1986, Ram Sarowar Singh P.W. 2 who happens to be the Road Peon in the district of Madhubani, noticed then two mango trees cut, which situate at Khesra Nos. 1756 and 1759 on the road of District Board, Madhubani. Though he resisted cutting of trees from the Government land, they accompalished their action. He took measurement of the trees and assessed loss of Rs. 1000/- to the District Board and with these accusations, a written report was submitted to the Junior Engineer, District Board, Madhubani who get the matter enquired by Ramji Mahto P.W. 1, who happens to be Amin in the District Board, and pursuant to that, the informant got the first information report registered through Ram Sarowar Singh, and it is how that on conclusion of investigation, the trial commenced against the petitioner and Santosh Thakur. In the eventual trial, the State examined altogether four witnesses including Ramji Mahto (P.W. 1) Amin, Ram Sarowar Singh and Naresh Kumar, a Junior Engineer. The trial court on appreciation of evidence placed on the record about petitioner and Santosh Thakur having cut two mango trees from the land of District Board, Madhubani, and regard being had also to the extra judicial confession made by them, while negativing contention raised at bar on behalf of the petitioner about the trees being cut from the land of private person, rendered verdict, finding them guilty under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them in the manner stated above. As has been stated, the finding recorded by the trial court was affirmed by the appellate court and hence there has been concurrent finding of both the courts below. 3. Contention raised at bar on behalf of the petitioner was that though two logs of mango trees were suggested to have been removed by the petitioner and Santosh Thakur for which a seizure memo was also prepared, the said seizure memo was not placed on the record at trial and hence the assertion made by the prosecution has to be discredited. Next it is urged that even the number of trees which are recorded in the register, had not been disclosed before the trial court and the last argument was that the prosecution was launched against the petitioner in the year 1986 and since then much water has flown over the Ganges river. My attention has also been drawn to the statement of the petitioner recorded by the trial court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is urged that in the year 1993 while the statement was recorded, the petitioner was found 55 years of age and now he must have been not less than 64 years of age and that apart, the petitioner has suffered ordeal of protracted litigation for more than 14 years for loss of Rs. 1000/- only of the District Board. 4. There being concurrent finding of the courts below about guilt of the petitioner and there being no mitigating evidence to militate against bona fide prosecution case, the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below did not require interference by this court. However, so far imposition of sentence on the petitioner is concerned, regard being had to the fact that the petitioner has suffered ordeal of protracted litigation for more than 14 years, he being quite aged person and having prosecuted only for loss of Rs. 1000/- only allegedly suffered by the District Board, the petitioner, who is shown to be in custody for two months, is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and in addition to that, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred), in default of which he would suffer further rigorous imprisonment for four months and with this modificationi in sentence, this revision is dismissed.