ORDER : Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this case has been filed challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 27.09.2008 and for setting aside of the same, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2006, whereby and whereunder the learned Lower Appellate Court has affirmed and upheld the order of conviction dated 24.02.2006 in G.R. Case No. 193/89, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, at Daltonganj convicting the present petitioner for one year U/s 406 of I.P.C. 3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is confining his argument on the point of sentence. He submits that the petitioner as on date is around 77 years of age and on the date of conviction i.e. on 24.06.2006, he was 64 years of age. The counsel also submits that the petitioner has remained in custody from 26.04.1995 to 10.08.1995 at the stage of trial. Subsequently, at the stage of revision before this Court, he remained in custody from 07.11.2008 to 02.12.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner has remained in custody for a total period of 118 days. Apart from this, the petitioner must have taken one or two days for furnishing his bail bond and thus, he submits that total custody is around four months out of total period of conviction by the learned court below of one year rigorous imprisonment. The counsel further submits that a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was also imposed by way of punishment. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was instituted in the year 1989 and the petitioner has faced the criminal case for a considerable long time. Initially, the petitioner was put up for trial for alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 477 of I.P.C. The entire criminal proceeding was on the basis of audit objection in connection with alleged misappropriation of Rs. 1,71,004.08. The counsel submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the period for which the petitioner has faced the criminal proceedings, some sympathetic view may be taken and the punishment may be confined to the period already undergone. He submits that the petitioner is also ready to deposit the fine amount, which has already been imposed. 5. The counsel submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the period for which the petitioner has faced the criminal proceedings, some sympathetic view may be taken and the punishment may be confined to the period already undergone. He submits that the petitioner is also ready to deposit the fine amount, which has already been imposed. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations relate to misappropriation of money belonging to Kutmu Pandu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies Ltd. and accordingly, he submits that no lenient view may be taken by this Court. However, he does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has faced criminal proceedings since the year 1989. He further submits that if any remission is given regarding sentence, then the fine may be enhanced to an amount not less than Rs. 50,000/-. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the case was instituted in the year 1989 and the petitioner was convicted on 24.02.2006. At the time of conviction, the petitioner was 64 years of age and accordingly, he is around 77 years of age as on date. 7. This Court further finds that the petitioner has remained in custody for almost four months. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that appellant has faced the rigors of the criminal case since 1989 and he is an old age person and remained in custody for about four months, this Court, in view to meet the ends of justice modifies the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone in judicial custody and enhance the fine amount to Rs. 50,000/-. 8. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/- before the learned court below latest by 31st December, 2019 and if the said amount is not deposited by that time, the bail bond of the petitioner will be cancelled and he would serve the remaining sentence, as imposed by the learned courts below. 9. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence. 10. Pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of. 11. 9. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence. 10. Pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned court below through ‘FAX’. 12. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately transmitted to the court concerned. Revision petition disposed of