ORDER : Criminal Revision No. 434 of 2008 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 434 of 2008 and Mr. P.K. Deomani, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 525 of 2008. 2. Heard Ms. Nitu Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party. 3. Counsel for the petitioner In Cr. Rev. No.434 of 2008 submits that the revision application is directed against the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by learned 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum- Special Judge C.B.I., Ranchi in Cri. Appeal No. 128 of 2006 confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 120-B, read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code in R. C. 20A/95 (R), T. R. No. 8/2006 passed by learned S.D.J.M.-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi on 29.04.2006, sentence passed by the trial court sentence to undergo R.I. of 1 year the offence under Section 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and further be also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default thereof to go further imprisonment of three months arising out of R.C. 20A/95, T.R. No. 8/2006. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his argument on the point of sentence. While advancing the argument, he submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for the period from 13.10.1995 to 19.01.1996 (i.e. three months and six days) and further for the period from 07.06.2008 to 29.07.2008 (i.e. one month and twenty six days) and further for the period from 19.03.2019 to till date and thus he has been in custody for a total period of about nine months out of the punishment of imprisonment of 1 year. He further submits that the petitioner has suffered the rigors of the case since 1995 and accordingly the sentence be modified and limited to the period for which he has already remained in custody. He further submits that so far as the fine amount of Rs.5000/- is concerned, the petitioner shall pay, if not already paid. The counsel further submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner as per the records available in this court and the present age of the petitioner is 60 years. 5. He further submits that so far as the fine amount of Rs.5000/- is concerned, the petitioner shall pay, if not already paid. The counsel further submits that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner as per the records available in this court and the present age of the petitioner is 60 years. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 1 SCC 142 (Naresh Chaubey vs. C.B.I.) and other judgment passed by Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court reported in 2003 SCC Online Jhar 353 (Uma Shankar Pandey vs. C.B.I.). 6. Counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner and submits that apart from custody, the petitioner was also directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 5000/- and on default, it was directed that the petitioner would undergo three month simple imprisonment. She further submits that the petitioner should be directed to deposit the fine amount and does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has faced the criminal proceedings right from the year 1995. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the present age of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has faced the criminal proceedings right from the year 1995, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence and limit the period of imprisonment to which the petitioner has already undergone and payment of fine amount imposed by the learned court below. On account of non-deposit of the fine amount, the petitioner would undergo a simple imprisonment of three months as directed by the learned court below. Upon deposit of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- by the petitioner, the said amount will be paid to the informant after due identification. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the sentence. Cri. Revision No. 525 of 2008 9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 04.10.2007 passed by learned 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner-Cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in Cr. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the sentence. Cri. Revision No. 525 of 2008 9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 04.10.2007 passed by learned 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner-Cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.116 of 2006 confirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 120-B, read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code in R. C. No. 20(A)/95(R), T.R. No. 8 of 2006 passed by learned S.D.J.M.-cum-Special J.M., C.B.I., Ranchi dated 29.04.2006 sentence passed by the trial court sentenced to undergo R.I. of 1(One) year the offence under Section 120(B) r/w 420/468/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code and further be also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof to go further imprisonment of three months arising out of R.C. No. 20 (A) of 1995, T.R. No. 8 of 2006. 10. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining the argument on the point of sentence. While advancing the argument, he submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for the period from 07.07.2008 to 14.08.2008 (i.e. one month and seven days) and further for the period from 25.04.2019 to till date (i.e. eighty-nine days) and thus he has been in custody for a total period of 126 days. He further submits that the petitioner has suffered the rigors of the case since 1995 and accordingly the sentence be modified and limited the period for which he has already remained in custody. He submits that the petitioner is about 57 years of age as on today. 11. Counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner and submits that apart from custody, the petitioner was also directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 5000/- and on default, it was directed that the petitioner would undergo three month simple imprisonment. She further submits that the petitioner should be directed to deposit the fine amount and does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has faced the criminal proceedings right from the year 1995. She further submits that the custody of this petitioner is less than the custody of the petitioner in the aforesaid analogous case. 12. She further submits that the petitioner should be directed to deposit the fine amount and does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has faced the criminal proceedings right from the year 1995. She further submits that the custody of this petitioner is less than the custody of the petitioner in the aforesaid analogous case. 12. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the fact that the petitioner has faced the litigation right from the year 1995 onwards and that the petitioner is about 57 years of age as on today, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of the petitioner to the period which the petitioner has already undergone and a total fine of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned court within a period of one month from today. Upon deposit of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- by the petitioner, the said amount will be paid to the informant after due identification. On account of non-deposit of fine, the petitioner would undergo the punishment (both fine and sentence) as imposed by the learned court below. 13. The instant revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence. 14. Office is directed to communicate this order through ‘FAX’ and immediately send back the Lower Court Records.