JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. (CAV) - Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 26.07.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 37-C of 1989 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.03.1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 721A of 1987 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 7 of the Cinematography Act and under section 290 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- respectively has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on information that in the hall besides house no. 216 regular cinema show was being held on video by selling tickets the place was raided and the petitioner who was trying to flee away was apprehended. It is alleged that 10 tickets were seized from his possession along with colour T.V., V.C.R. casettee of Hindi films and other incriminating articles. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 29 of 1987 was instituted. Charge sheet was submitted under section 63/64 of the Copy Rights Act, under section 7 of the Cinematography Act, under section 3/7 of the Bihar Cinema Regulation Act and under section 420/290 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance was taken charge was framed under section 7 of the Cinematography Act, under section 63 of the Copy Rights Act and under section 290 of the India Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 01.03.1989 under section 7 of the Cinematography Act and Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 100/- respectively. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 37-C of 1989 which was however dismissed on 26.07.2002. 5. In course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Laxman Mukhi is a seizure list witness and so is Mahendra Mukhi (P.W.2). P.W.3 Rakesh Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case who has deposed that the raid was conducted in the hall besides house no. 5. In course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Laxman Mukhi is a seizure list witness and so is Mahendra Mukhi (P.W.2). P.W.3 Rakesh Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case who has deposed that the raid was conducted in the hall besides house no. 216 and the petitioner was arrested with 10 tickets recovered from his possession. P.W.4 Dhanraj Singh is the informant who has stated that on secret information having been received the hall by the side of house no. 216 was raided and the petitioner who was selling tickets was apprehended. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no direct evidence to suggest that the petitioner himself was involved in showing films to the audience by selling tickets. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely some tickets were alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that cannot by itself point to the guilt of the petitioner. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 8. It appears that P.W.3 and P.W.4 were members of the raiding party who had conducted a raid in the hall besides house no. 216 and the petitioner was apprehended selling tickets and several incriminating articles including V.C.R. casettee of Hindi films, colour T.V. etc., were recovered. The same would suggest that the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of Section 7 of the Cinematography Act was involved in conducting shows of films by selling tickets to the viewers. The prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the petitioner was rightly convicted under section 7 of the Cinematography Act and under section 290 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly which was rightly affirmed in appeal also. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner and affirmed in appeal is hereby sustained. 9. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner is concerned it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1987 and has also for sometime remained in custody out of a maximum sentence of six months R.I. Such circumstances, therefore, entitles the petitioner to a reduction in the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is, hereby, modified to the period already undergone. 11. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. S