JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. H.K. Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 18.04.2000 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 1995 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa where by and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Porahat at Chaibasa in Bandhgaon, P.S. Case No. 53 of 1989 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 194 of 1989 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been dismissed and the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate of three years R.I. has been modified and reduced by the learned appellate court to two years R.I. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that an agreement was executed between the Block Development Officer and the petitioner on 27.05.1988 for construction of well under the Jaldhara Scheme. The petitioner is said to have signed in seven agreements for completion of wells which were to be completed by 30.01.1988 for which the petitioner had been given an advance amount of Rs. 5000/- for each of the schemes. It is alleged that in spite of taking an advance the wells were not dug till the month of December 1988 and notice was served upon the petitioner and consequent to the same Bandhgaon P.S. Case No. 53 of 1989 was instituted. 4. Investigation culminated in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and there after trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Jaipal Singh Sundi is a formal witness. P.W.7 Eliyajar Munda and P.W.8 Prabhu Das Munda both have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.6 Chedi Ram Bagal has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.2 Saroj Subash Hereng was a Junior Engineer in Bandgaon Block who had stated that the petitioner in spite of getting an advance had not even started digging the wells. P.W.3 Banmali Singh Munda was the Pramukh of Bandgaon Block who had forwarded the application to the Block Development Officer for allotment of work for digging of wells. This witness has not stated about any misappropriation of the advance money taken by the petitioner. P.W.3 Banmali Singh Munda was the Pramukh of Bandgaon Block who had forwarded the application to the Block Development Officer for allotment of work for digging of wells. This witness has not stated about any misappropriation of the advance money taken by the petitioner. P.W.4 Bipin Bihari Pramanik was an assistant in the office of Block Development Officer, Bandgaon who has proved certain documents. P.W.5 Shasi Sekhar Prasad is the Block Development Officer who had supported the prosecution case about the petitioner having entered into several agreements for construction of wells and also been given an advance but the wells were never dug and therefore the petitioner had misappropriated the amount given as advance. 6. After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.06.1995 was pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years. The appeal preferred by the petitioner being Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 1995 was dismissed by the learned appellate court on 18.04.2000 by modifying the sentence and reducing it to two years R.I. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was handicapped on account of map and plan of the wells to be dug having not been provided to him. It has further been submitted that on account of the onset of monsoon the work of digging the wells was hampered and it was never the intention of the petitioner to misappropriate the amount which was advanced to him for completion of the schemes for which the petitioner had entered into an agreement. 8. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 9. There does not appear to be any dispute with respect to the amount of Rs. 5000/- for each scheme being advanced to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the wells for which the petitioner was given an advance pursuant to the agreement entered into were never dug and feeble efforts were made by the petitioner that since the plan and map of the places in which the wells were to be dug were not provided to him he could not start the work. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is negated solely in view of the fact that in the agreement itself specific location of digging of wells were given and therefore the petitioner cannot now say that he was never handed over the plan or the map of the areas. The petitioner therefore has committed an act of criminal breach of trust as in spite of taking an advance in each of the schemes he had never started work on the said schemes which resulted in a huge loss to the Government. The learned trial court on proper appreciation of the materials available on record had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code and which was affirmed by the learned appellate court. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner and affirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby sustained. 10. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it seems that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1989. The petitioner is suffering mental agony for the last almost three decades. The petitioner has also for sometime remained in custody. On consideration of such facts as enumerated above the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 11. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.