JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. P.C. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 19.07.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1998 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Daltonganj in C. F. Case No. 284 of 1996 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are vital contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses. It has been stated that since the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. 5. The prosecution case in brief is that the Forest Guard noticed some buffaloes were grazing the afforestation area. On noticing the said fact, the buffaloes were impounded. It was alleged that there was a quarrel between the parties and it had come to the knowledge that some Khair and Gamhar trees were grazed by buffaloes which led to submission of an offence report. The allegation was looked into and thereafter the prosecution report was submitted leading to submission of charge-sheet. 6. In course of trial, 3 witnesses were examined. P.W.1-Chandrika Sao is the forest guard who has submitted the offence report to the Forester. P.W. 2 is Surajdeo Ram who has stated that he had also gone along with P.W. 1 to the afforestation area and some buffaloes which were grazing were impounded and accused were apprehended. P.W. 3-Bhola Manjhi is a formal witness who has proved the notification of the Government issued under section 29, 30 & 31 of the Indian Forest Act and also sketch map and the prosecution report prepared by Lok Nath Singh. 7. It appears that the forester who prepared the prosecution report has died during the pendency of this proceeding. However, the prosecution report prepared by Lok Nath Singh as well as the sketch map were duly proved by P.W. 3-Bhola Manjhi. 7. It appears that the forester who prepared the prosecution report has died during the pendency of this proceeding. However, the prosecution report prepared by Lok Nath Singh as well as the sketch map were duly proved by P.W. 3-Bhola Manjhi. The evidence of P.W. 1 & 2 is corroborative to each others statement to the fact that they had seen the buffaloes grazing the afforested areas which were impounded and thereafter, a quarrel between the petitioner and the forest guard took place. These witnesses have also stated that about 337 plants of Khair and 213 plants of Gamhar were grazed by the buffaloes. The allegations therefore, levelled against the petitioner was sufficiently proved by the ocular evidences as well as by the documentary evidences produced by the prosecution. 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has rightly been convicted by the learned trial court which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby sustained. 9. However, so as as the period of sentence is concerned, it appears that out of maximum sentence of 6 months S.I., the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 1 and half months. The petitioner is also facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1996. On consideration of the aforesaid fact coupled with the offence as alleged against the petitioner, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.