JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. is present. 2. As this matter is pending since 2008, same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 12.8.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 237 of 2007, whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.9.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad in Jogta P.S. Case No. 48 of 2001 convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years along with a fine of Rs.500/-has been affirmed. 4. The prosecution story, as narrated by the informant, who is the daughter of Chhote Ram Kishun Bhuiyan, is that her father after superannuating from BCCL had received as retiral benefits Rs.2,35,240/-, which was deposited in the State Bank of India. It has been alleged that on 19.5.2001, the petitioner took the father of the informant to the bank and after threatening him had forcibly made him withdraw an amount of Rs.80,000/-. It has been alleged that the petitioner had taken away the entire amount and when the informant asked about the episode from the petitioner, he gave her Rs.10,000/-and kept the rest amount with him. It has also been alleged that on 26.5.2001, the petitioner had again threatened the father of the informant, which ultimately resulted in institution of an FIR. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jogta P.S. Case No. 48 of 2001 was instituted, in which after investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed under sections 386/420 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W-1-Chhote Lal Bhuiyan is the brother in law of the informant, who has deposed that Chhota Ram Kishun Bhuiyan had retired from BCCL and his retiral benefits were deposited in SBI, Loyabad. He has stated that the petitioner by forcibly obtaining the thumb impression had withdrawn an amount of Rs.80,000/-and had given him only Rs.10,000/-. P.W-1-Chhote Lal Bhuiyan is the brother in law of the informant, who has deposed that Chhota Ram Kishun Bhuiyan had retired from BCCL and his retiral benefits were deposited in SBI, Loyabad. He has stated that the petitioner by forcibly obtaining the thumb impression had withdrawn an amount of Rs.80,000/-and had given him only Rs.10,000/-. He has stated about the disclosure of the said fact to him by Chhota Ram Kishun Bhuiyan on 21.5.2001 and on 22.5.2001 he went to the bank for enquiring into it and the same was found to be correct. He has further stated that on being questioned, the petitioner has admitted to have taken the entire amount as the amount was made available to Chhota Ram Kishun Bhuiyan as loan along with interest. He has further stated that on 26.5.2001, the petitioner had once again put pressure on Chhota Ram Kishun Bhuiyan for withdrawing money from the bank. This witness has proved his signature on the written report marked as Ext-1. P.W-2-Shanti Bhuyini is the informant, who has stated that on 21.5.2001, the petitioner had taken her father to SBI, Loyabad where he got him to withdraw an amount of Rs.80,000/-, out of which, he gave her father to Rs.10,000/-and kept the balance amount with him. She has stated that on enquiry, she was told that her father had taken money from him with interest. She has deposed that after a few days, the petitioner had once again come and wanted to take her father to the bank for withdrawal of Rs.80,000/-and on refusal the petitioner had issued threats. She has further stated that money was given to her father upon retirement from BCCl. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the petitioner had assisted in getting the retirement benefits sanctioned to her father. P.W-3-Chamru Bhuiyan is a hearsay witness. P.W-4-Dineshwar Singh did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.W-5-Chhote Ram Kishun Bhuiyan is the victim who has stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone with the petitioner to SBI, Loyabad for withdrawing money. He has stated that an amount of Rs.80,000/-, which was withdrawn was taken away by the petitioner. He has stated that when his daughter enquired about it from the petitioner, she was given Rs.10,000/ and rest amount was kept by the petitioner. P.W-6-Narayan Bhuiyan is also a hearsay witness. He has stated that an amount of Rs.80,000/-, which was withdrawn was taken away by the petitioner. He has stated that when his daughter enquired about it from the petitioner, she was given Rs.10,000/ and rest amount was kept by the petitioner. P.W-6-Narayan Bhuiyan is also a hearsay witness. P.W-7-Chand Bhuyini did not support the prosecution case and hence was declared hostile by the prosecution. 5. The narration in the FIR has been supported apart from the informant, P.W-2 but also by the victim, P.W-5 and P.W-1.The evidences of P.W-1, 2 and 5 disclose that the victim-P.W-5 had received a substantial amount as retiral benefits on account of his superannuation from BCCL and the petitioner by giving threat and coercion had managed to force the victim to withdraw an amount of Rs.80,000/-and after much persuasion had handed over an amount of Rs.10,000/-to the informant whereas he had kept the amount of Rs.70,000/-to himself. Although, the petitioner has shown the reason for taking the amount which was in lieu of loan given by him to the victim along with interest but there is no documentary proof with respect to the said claim and it thus appear that the petitioner in order to legitimize the extortion committed by him while forcibly taking an amount of Rs.70,000/-which belonged to P.W-5 had tried to submit an explanation with respect to taking of the said amount. Although P.W-1 to a certain extent is a hearsay witness but it appears that on enquiring from the bank he had come to know that an amount of Rs.80,000/-had indeed been withdrawn by P.W-1, which substantiates the contention of P.Ws-2 and 5 that an amount of Rs.80,000/-was withdrawn from the bank on the threat and coercion on the part of the petitioner. Although, the Investigating Officer of the case had not been examined but the defence has failed to show as to in what manner it has been prejudiced. The evidences of P.Ws, 1, 2, 5 and 6 are corroborative and consistent with each other and their veracity and genuineness cannot be doubted as no contrary evidence has been produced by the defence or any contradiction has been elicited from the said witnesses by the defence in the cross-examination, which would lead to disbelieving the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. 6. 6. In the circumstances, enumerated above, therefore, since the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner was rightly convicted for the offence under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, which was affirmed in appeal. The same is hereby sustained. 7. However, with respect to the sentence, which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2001 and has remained in custody for sometime. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner, is modified to the period already undergone. 8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.