JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. K. Appu, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Since all these applications are preferred against the judgment dated 20.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2002, the same are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 20.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2002 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Porahat, Chaibasa in C/3 Case No. 88 of 1994 by which the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under section 42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years has been affirmed. 4. It has been stated that the identification of the petitioners is doubtful as some of the witnesses have identified the petitioners in dock. He further submits that all the witnesses are officials of the forest department and therefore are interested witnesses. It has been stated that the petitioners were never responsible for committing a forest offence and in fact when the seizure was made, several persons were present in the locality, but none has been examined by the prosecution. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.10.1994 when the forest officials were on patrolling duty in between the villages Tarabara and Rugidih, they had seen some miscreants illegally loading sal slippers on the truck. It is alleged that when the miscreants saw the forest officials, they who were 20 to 25 in numbers began to run away and some of them were identified by the raiding party. It is alleged that the truck on which the sal slippers were being loaded did not have any registration number and no papers were found inside the truck. A seizure list of the slippers and the truck was prepared and thereafter truck was brought to the forest depot at Chakradharpur after which the case was registered. After submission of prosecution report, cognizance was taken under Sections 26/41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and thereafter charge was framed. A seizure list of the slippers and the truck was prepared and thereafter truck was brought to the forest depot at Chakradharpur after which the case was registered. After submission of prosecution report, cognizance was taken under Sections 26/41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and thereafter charge was framed. Since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt under section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years. Petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2002 which however was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC V, Chaibasa on 20.08.2003. 7. In course of trial, 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 - Ram Lal Mahto was the member of the patrolling party who has stated that 172 sal slippers were loaded on the truck which was found without a number plate. This witness has stated that he has put his signature on seizure list which is marked as Exhibit 1. He has further stated that there were 4 houses near the place of occurrence and inhabitants of those houses were called upon, but none had come. This witness claimed to have identified the accused Izhar Khan and Azad Khan. P.W. 2 - Surajmal Tigga, although was not a witness in the offence report, but it seems that he was put up by the prosecution as he was a member of the patrolling party. This witness has claimed to identify Izhar Khan in the dock and has stated that the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 316 of 2005 was apprehended in another previous case by the same witness in the year 1989. He has further stated that there were hammer marks on the said timbers. This witness is said to have identified only Md. Izhar Khan. P.W. 3 - Atwa Oraon is the forest guard who has also supported the forest case and who has claimed to identify all the 3 petitioners. This witness has also stated that the inhabitants of the houses nearby and the Munda of the village were called for, but they had not turned up. He also stated about the hammer marks on the timbers. P.W. 4 - Chari Ram Gagrai is the forest guard who has also supported the prosecution case. 8. This witness has also stated that the inhabitants of the houses nearby and the Munda of the village were called for, but they had not turned up. He also stated about the hammer marks on the timbers. P.W. 4 - Chari Ram Gagrai is the forest guard who has also supported the prosecution case. 8. It appears that initially the petitioners were charged under section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, but since no notification was produced by the forest department, on such technical ground, the petitioners were acquitted under section 26 of Indian Forest Act. The witnesses have consistently stated about the seizure of Sal slippers which were being loaded in the truck which contained hammer marks. The witness nos. 1, 2 & 3 identified the accused persons of being a member of the persons who were present at the time of loading of sal slippers on the truck. The seizure list has also been duly proved by the witnesses of the prosecution. In view of the consistent evidence available on record which points to the identification of the petitioners in committing the forest offence, the petitioners have rightly been convicted under section 42 of the Indian Forest Act which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC V, Chaibasa. 9. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners by the learned SDJM, Porahat, Chaibasa and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC V, Chaibasa is hereby confirmed. 10. However, so far as the order of sentence is concerned, it appears that the petitioners are facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1994. The petitioners as it seems remained in custody for a period of almost 6 months. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, the long lapse of time which has passed since the institution of the prosecution case and the fact that the petitioners have suffered incarceration in custody, the period of sentence is modified. Accordingly, the period of sentence imposed upon them is modified to the period already undergone. 11. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.