JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 01.07.2005 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2004, whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.05.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 407 of 1996 (T.R. No. 372 of 2004), by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under section 407 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years has been affirmed. 3. It has been submitted by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the main allegation has been levelled against Ramesh Chandra Gope and the petitioner being the driver of the vehicle has only been implicated because of the same. It has been submitted that there is no conspiracy hatched by the petitioner in taking away the amount of Rs. 85,000/- as the same was admittedly recovered on the confessional statement of co-accused Ramesh Chandra Gope. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidences adduced by the witnesses are not consistent and in such circumstances therefore the judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be modified suitably considering the fact that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1996 and has also remained in custody for a period of about seven months. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears from the First Information Report that the informant had hired a truck bearing registration no. BR-18-0024 from one Ashish Kumar and had entrusted a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- to the driver (petitioner) in presence of the truck owner for purchasing rice from M/s Om Food Product, Balgarh (Orissa) to carry the same to Chaibasa. 5. It appears from the First Information Report that the informant had hired a truck bearing registration no. BR-18-0024 from one Ashish Kumar and had entrusted a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- to the driver (petitioner) in presence of the truck owner for purchasing rice from M/s Om Food Product, Balgarh (Orissa) to carry the same to Chaibasa. It is alleged that on the next day the truck owner was informed that when the truck had reached at Hat Gamharia Line Hotel the driver stopped the vehicle on the pretext of attending the call of nature and in the meantime Ramesh Chandra Gope had taken away the entire money from the dickey of the truck and fled away. It is alleged that Ramesh Chandra Gope was subsequently apprehended and on his confessional statement a sum of Rs. 85,000/- was recovered from the bushes. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 407 of 1996 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken for the offences under section 407, 411 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code trial proceeded. 7. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Om Prakash Rungta is the informant who has stated that he had hired a truck for carrying rice from Sambalpur to Chaibasa and for which he had entrusted a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- to the petitioner. He has further disclosed that on the next day the truck owner had informed him that the Khalasi as well as the petitioner had fled away with the money. He has further disclosed that at the time of apprehending co-accused Ramesh Gope a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was recovered from his possession and after 3 to 4 days a sum of Rs. 85,000/- was also recovered on the direction of the accused persons. P.W.2 Satish Khirwal is the seizure list witness. P.W.3 Ashish Kumar is the owner of the truck who had stated about the amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- having been given to the petitioner. This witness had stated that the Khalasi Ramesh Chandra Gope is the son of the petitioner. P.W.4 Ajay Kumar is a seizure list witness. P.W.5 Jai Prakash Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the case who had disclosed that the money had been recovered at the instance of the confessional statement of co-accused Ramesh Gope. This witness had stated that the Khalasi Ramesh Chandra Gope is the son of the petitioner. P.W.4 Ajay Kumar is a seizure list witness. P.W.5 Jai Prakash Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the case who had disclosed that the money had been recovered at the instance of the confessional statement of co-accused Ramesh Gope. He has further stated that during the course of investigation he had handed over the charge to one B.B. Tirkey who had submitted charge sheet. 8. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses that the amount was taken away by a miscreant while the truck was standing near the line hotel and the petitioner being the driver of the said truck had gone to attend the call of nature. The angle of conspiracy is proved by the fact that Ramesh Chandra Gope who is alleged to have taken away the amount and at his instance some amount was recovered is actually the son of the petitioner. The witnesses have sufficiently corroborated each others statement with respect to the handing over of the amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- to the petitioner and his subsequent act by virtue of which his son had taken away the amount and a part of which was also recovered later on. 9. Thus the incident seems to have taken place on account of a conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and the other accused persons. Even the seizure list witnesses being P.W.2 and P.W.4 have supported the factum of seizure. Such fact having been rightly appreciated by the learned trial court the petitioner was convicted for the offences under section 407 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court also on proper appreciation of the materials available on record affirmed the judgment of conviction. 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. 10. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about seven months. The petitioner is also facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1996. 10. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about seven months. The petitioner is also facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1996. Considering the nature of offence, the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the long pendency of the case, 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.