JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 26.09.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 1990 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chatra on 20.07.1990 in connection with Itkhori P.S. Case No.29 of 1984 for the offences punishable under sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with section 379 of the IPC by which the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case with respect to the theft of electricity having been committed by the petitioners inasmuch as the head line men of the Electricity Department who were examined as P.W-3 and P.W.-4 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. In the alternative, an argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction, the sentenced be modified suitably in view of the fact that the petitioners are facing rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1984 and out of maximum period of three months they have remained in custody for sometime. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. It appears that a raid was conducted by the members of the Electricity Department in the cloth shop of the petitioners wherein it was found that through P.V.C wire, the petitioners were extracting electricity stealthy and directly from the main line to the shop. It is also alleged that on account of the act of the petitioner, a loss of Rs.500/- was caused. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Itkhori P.S. Case No. 29 of 1984 was instituted for the offences punishable under sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with section 379 of the IPC. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted pursuant to which cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Itkhori P.S. Case No. 29 of 1984 was instituted for the offences punishable under sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with section 379 of the IPC. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted pursuant to which cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded. In course of trial, the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, and the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with section 379 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months which was subsequently affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1990 by the 3rd additional Sessions Judge, Chatra on 26.09.2000. 6. It appears that the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. P.W-1 Bhagirath Mandal is a formal witness. The members of the raiding party have been arrayed as P.Ws-2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. P.Ws 2, 5 and 6 have supported the prosecution case with respect to the drawing of electricity by illegally connecting the cloth shop of the petitioners with low tension line by using P.V.C wire. P.W-3 is the head line man who had stated about the raid but has submitted that he was not present when the raid was conducted which led him to be declared hostile. Similarly P.W-4 Ram Swarath Singh is another line man who had also proved his signature in the seizure-list but his deposition had also led him to be declared hostile by the prosecution. Although, P.Ws 3 and 4 were declared hostile by the prosecution but the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has culled out from their statements, the fact that they were present at the time when the raid was conducted. P.W-6 Deo Kant Jha was the member of the Special Squad of the CID who had also supported the prosecution case and was also the seizure-list witness. 7. The evidence available on record thus suggests the complicity of the petitioners in consuming electricity through illegal means which rightly led to their conviction passed by the learned trial court as affirmed by the learned appellate court. 8. There being no reason to conclude otherwise this application fails so far as the challenge which has been made to the judgment of conviction is concerned. 8. There being no reason to conclude otherwise this application fails so far as the challenge which has been made to the judgment of conviction is concerned. However, as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners are concerned, it appears that the petitioners have remained in custody for sometime out of maximum punishment of three months. The case was instituted in the year 1984. The petitioners are facing rigours of the prosecution case for last more than three decades. Consideration of the aforesaid scenario would definitely lead to a conclusion that the petitioners deserve modification in the sentence awarded to them. Accordingly, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.