ORDER : No one appears on behalf the petitioner although Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. This application is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.12.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 239 of 1990 (T.R. No. 124 of 1994) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 418/109 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. The petitioner has also challenged the Judgment and order dated 08.09.2000 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 1995 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by which the Judgment passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed. 3. It appears from the prosecution case instituted by the daughter of the petitioner is that the wife of the petitioner was working in BCCL and she has opted for voluntary retirement after which the petitioner was appointed in BCCL. It is alleged that the petitioner had given an undertaking that he shall make payment of Rs. 300/- per month to the complainant who is his daughter and half of the property but subsequent to the remarriage of the petitioner with one Chameli Devi the amount of Rs. 300/- per month was stopped being paid to the complainant which resulted in the institution of the Complaint Case. After conducting an inquiry cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/s 418/109 of the I.P.C. and in course of trial the learned trial court having found the petitioner guilty for the said offence and accordingly convicted and has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year. The Judgment of the learned trial court has been affirmed in Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 1995 passed by the learned 5th Addition Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. 4. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Chaiti Devi (P.W.4) is the complainant who had stated that her mother Rukmini Devi was in service in BCCL but has subsequently taken voluntary retirement and her father i.e. the petitioner was given the service on the condition that he would make payment of Rs. 300/- per month to the complainant and also half of the share in the property to the complainant. 5. 300/- per month to the complainant and also half of the share in the property to the complainant. 5. It appears to that respect affidavits were also executed by the petitioner firstly on 04.07.1988 which has been marked as Exhibit-1 and then on 11.05.1989 which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. The Exhibits discloses that the petitioner had agreed to the fact that his daughter shall be entitled to get Rs. 300/- per month of his salary even after his re-marriage and she is also entitled to half of the gratuity and all other deposited amount. The allegation made against the petitioner of not fulfilling his promise seems to be substantiated by the affidavits sworn by the petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner after his re-marriage with Chameli Devi has receded from his promise which he had earlier given which led to institution of the Complaint Case. The evidence of the complainant (P.W.4) has been supported by Doman Chowhan (P.W.3) who is her husband. The prosecution has therefore been able to establish its case that the petitioner had indeed agreed to make a payment of Rs. Rs. 300/- per month as well as to give half of the property to the complainant for which he has sworn affidavit but has subsequently receded from his earlier promise after getting re-married to one Chameli Devi on the death of the mother of the complainant Rukmini Devi. There being sufficient evidence on record to convict the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 418/109 of the I.P.C, the Judgment passed by the learned court below requires no interference and accordingly the Judgment of conviction is, hereby, affirmed. 6. However, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1994 and he has remained in custody for about a month. Considering the long pendency of the case and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner however is modified to the period already undergone. 7. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.