JUDGMENT : No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned A.P.P. is present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 9/82 of 2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamu at Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latehar in C.F. Case No. 4 of 1998/Trial Case No. 546 of 2000 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 29 and 30 of the Wild Life Protection Act and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act has been affirmed. 3. It appears that the petitioners were apprehended while they were cutting Kutha trees. It is alleged that three axes with three logs of Kutha woods were recovered from the place of occurrence. After submission of prosecution report the trial into the offence started and on conclusion of the trial the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau, Daltonganj had convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 29 and 30 of the Wild Life Protection Act and had sentenced them accordingly. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 9/82 of 2000 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj on 22.09.2000. 4. In course of trial the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. 5. P.W. - 4, Mukhdeo Ram, P.W. - 5, Paras Nath Singh, P.W. - 6, Rameshwar Shukla, P.W. - 7, Bhola Nath Ram, P. W. - 9, Bishnu Manjhi and P.W.- 10, Bajrang Dubey who all are the Forest Guards have stated about the occurrence which had taken place at Saidoop Protected Forest where the petitioners were found cutting the Kutha trees and were subsequently apprehended and several incriminating articles were recovered from the place of occurrence. Although the defence has raised the question with respect to the fact that no independent witnesses were examined but it appears that the incident had taken place deep inside the forest and there was no question of any independent witnesses being present near the place of occurrence. 6. It further appears that the notification under Section 31 of the Forest Act had already been filed which was marked as Exhibit-6. 6. It further appears that the notification under Section 31 of the Forest Act had already been filed which was marked as Exhibit-6. Consistent evidence on the part of the prosecution with respect to the role played by the petitioners in cutting Kutha tress and being apprehended on the spot which is a protected forest had led the learned trial court to conclude the guilt of the petitioners which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. 7. There being no error or illegality in the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court the same is, hereby, upheld. 8. However, with regard to the sentence which has been handed out to the petitioners it appears that the case was instituted in the year 1998 and apart from the fact that the petitioners are facing rigors of the prosecution case for almost two decades and the petitioners had also remained in custody for sometime and considering the nature of allegation, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is accordingly modified to the period already undergone by them. 9. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.