JUDGEMENT Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. 1. The accused Petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 30th June 2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 1999 by which the judgment of conviction dated 4.2.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bihar Sharif in Trial No. 696 of 1999, G.R. No. 1860 A/1996 arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 327/96, has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed with modification in the sentence. 2. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.9.1996 the raiding party of the Electricity Board under a Magistrate raided the cloth shop of the Petitioner at Garhpar and the house of one Md. Muslim and also the shop and house of Shankar Prasad and it was found that all they were consuming electricity illegally by making illegal connection from the L.T. line and PVC wire. Tubes and fans were seized. On the written report, Bihar P.S. Case No. 327 of 1996 dated 23.9.1996 was instituted under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused including the Petitioner. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioner and other two accused were found innocent. The charges were framed against the Petitioner and after trial the Petitioner was convicted under Section 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years under both the sections and the sentences to run concurrently. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 1999. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it appears that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appelLate court has found that the prosecution has been able to prove its charge for the offence punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act. The fans and the material for using the electricity illegally have also been seized from the place of occurrence and they have been exhibited. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality and impropriety of the impugned order. There is no material on record to show that accused have any criminal antecedent and the occurrence has taken place on 23.9.1996. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality and impropriety of the impugned order. There is no material on record to show that accused have any criminal antecedent and the occurrence has taken place on 23.9.1996. More than 14 years have passed and the Petitioner has been suffering from mental agony. Apart from that the Petitioner has also remained in custody for some time. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances in my view, the sentence deserves to be modified. The sentence of the Petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 6. In the result, this revision application is dismissed with modification in the sentence.