Judgment C.M.Prasad, J. 1. This revision is against the order of conviction of the petitioner under Sec.3 of the R.P. (U.R) Act and sentence of R.I. for 2 years, vide order dated 28.9.1995 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barauni Junction (Begusarai) in Karhara R.P.F. Case No. 7/80/Tr. No. 64/ 95 as confirmed vide order dated 7.2.2000 of the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Begusarai passed in Cr. Appeal No. 122 of 1995. 2. The prosecution case was that the petitioner was a coal dealer and that on reports that he was possessing stolen coal of railways a raid was conducted on 8.10.80 at 4.00 P.M. as result of which 20 tones of coal was found in petitioners coal depot and the coal was seized by the police. Two kgs. of the coal was taken as sample which was sent for examination and the examination report of coal showed that it was Grade-A coal which was being used in the Railways. The railway coal storage of the area was also verified and a shortage of 326.1 tones of coal due to pilferage and handling was found. 3. As many as 11 witnesses were examined by prosecution who proved about the recovery of coal, the examination of coal and its result of being Grade-A and the examination report of its being Grade-A quality and also about shortage of coal in the coal depot. 4. The defence of the petitioner as adduced vide evidence of D.W.1 was that the petittoner had purchased the coal from one truck driver Sobha Singh and a document of sale in this regard was also proved as Ext. A. But the seller truck driver Sobha Singh was not examined to support the story of sale by him and its purchase by the petitioner. 5. The learned court below examined the evidence in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the said Grade-A quality coal was not available for public use and recovered coal belonged to Railways, found the petitioner guilty of the charge and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as above. 6. I do not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner as above. 7. 6. I do not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner as above. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence is of 8.10.1980 and the trial courts judgment was passed on 28.9.1985 i.e. after nearly 15 years of the occurrence and the appellate courts judgment was passed on 7.2.2000 i.e. after further 5 years and thus the petitioner suffered rigours and stress of the trial and the appeal for 20 years. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has also suffered the stress of the pendency of this revision application for nearly 6 years. It is also submitted that the petitioner remained in jail custody during the trial for about two months. Learned counsel submitted that the quantum of sentence as passed on the petitioner is excessive. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence is reduced to R.I. for one year. This revision application stands dismissed with the modification in sentence as above.