ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. -VI, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2003 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.07.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G. R. Case No. 2105 of 2000 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel also submits that the loss which was allegedly caused to the Board has already been deposited by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner had already undergone one month and eighteen days in custody. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts the benefit of doubt should go to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears from the prosecutions report that on 21.09.2000 at about 08:15 P.M. the informant and his team had found illegal electrical connection in the residential house of the petitioner although his electrical line was disconnected for non-payment of the arrears. 6. After investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and trial proceeded. 7. In course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 8. P.W. -1, Md. Taslim, had stated that on 20.09.2000 he was deputed as a Magistrate for stopping electricity theft. This witness had stated that he along with other persons from the department had gone to the house of the informant wherein it was found that the informant was committing theft of electrical energy by hooking with a telephone wire. This witness had stated that the electrical connection was disconnected and the wire was seized. 9. This witness had stated that he along with other persons from the department had gone to the house of the informant wherein it was found that the informant was committing theft of electrical energy by hooking with a telephone wire. This witness had stated that the electrical connection was disconnected and the wire was seized. 9. P.W. -2, Bhagwan Singh, is the Head Lineman, who had stated that he was also a member of the raiding party and in spite of line having been disconnected the petitioner was committing theft of electricity by illegal means. 10. P.W. -3, Ashok Kumar Sinha, is the informant who had stated that he and other members of the raiding party had conducted raid in the house of the petitioner and the petitioner was found consuming electricity by illegal means. This witness had also stated that the petitioner was a consumer but on account of non-payment of the bills electric line was disconnected. 11. P.W. -4, Rajendra Prasad Singh, was also a member of the raiding party who had supported the prosecution case. 12. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses that all were the members of the raiding party who had inspected the premises of the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner was consuming electricity by illegal means. It was also admitted by the witnesses that earlier the electrical connection in the house of the petitioner was disconnected on account of non-payment of arrears. The prosecution, therefore, has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts which led to the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. The learned appellate court also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record affirmed the judgment of conviction. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained. 13. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2000. The petitioner has also remained in custody for a period of one and half months out of a maximum sentence of six months simple imprisonment. 13. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2000. The petitioner has also remained in custody for a period of one and half months out of a maximum sentence of six months simple imprisonment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the loss which was caused to the Board on account of the illegal theft of electricity has also been deposited by the petitioner. 14. On consideration of the aforesaid facts the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 15. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.