JUDGMENT Deepak Roshan, J. - This application is directed against the judgment dated 18.08.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.102/2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 26.02.2013 passed in R.P. Case No.100/94/ T.R. No.6/13 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner has been found guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) of R.P. (U.P.) Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, was affirmed. 2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a written report of the informant, namely, Sanjay Bhagat, S.I. RPF Post, Dhanbad alleging therein that on the basis of secret information an abandoned house was raided at Nishat Nagar, Wasseypur on 30.06.1994. On seeing the raiding party, two persons, who were present there, fled away. They were identified as appellant Fahim Khan and Baldev Mandal. On search in presence of two local witnesses one railway steel trough sleeper, four nos. of CST-9 plates and six nos. of railway wagons B.G. Spring of C & W department were recovered. 3. After investigation, I.O found the occurrence to be true and submitted prosecution report under Section 3 R.P. (U.P.) Act. The cognizance of this case was taken on the same day under Section 3 R.P.(U.P.) Act. The charges were framed against the appellant on 12.01.2012, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced Sanjay Bhagat as P.W.1, Lallan Dubey as P.W.2, Mukul Chatterjee as P.W.3, Abinash Chandra Singh as P.W.4, D.K. Jana as P.W. 5, Md. Samshad Khan as P.W. 6. The prosecution has also adduced seizure list as Ext.1, written complaint as Ext.2, Site plan as Ext.3, prosecution report as Ext.4, Expert opinion as Ext. 5 & 6 respectively and signatures of the witnesses on the seizure list as Ext.1/1 and 1/2 respectively. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 04.12.2012. On the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary available on the record, the learned court below held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 4. 5 & 6 respectively and signatures of the witnesses on the seizure list as Ext.1/1 and 1/2 respectively. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 04.12.2012. On the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary available on the record, the learned court below held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 4. The said order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Railway) was challenged by the petitioner-appellant before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad who has concurred with the finding of learned First court and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. At the very outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly confined his argument in respect of sentence only. He has further submitted that the petitioner remained in custody for nearly one year and eight months and he has already suffered much as such some leniency may be accorded to the petitioner. 6. Perused the lower court records. It clearly transpires from the documents available on record that the petitioner namely, Fahim Khan was identified by the members of the raiding party as a person, who was present at the house from where the railway properties were recovered. The recovered articles were admittedly railway properties and were in serviceable condition. Further, the witnesses have corroborated each other on point of date, time, place and manner of occurrence. It has also been corroborated by the documentary evidence that recovered articles were railway properties. 7. Thus, I find that prosecution has proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and as such, I find that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence charged, which does not require any interference from this Court. 8. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent that the petitioner remained in custody for more than one and half years. The case is also pending since 1994 and the petitioner has certainly suffered much and also remained in custody. In this way, I find it expedient in the interest of justice that the order of sentence already undergone will suffice for the ends of justice for the alleged offence. 9. The case is also pending since 1994 and the petitioner has certainly suffered much and also remained in custody. In this way, I find it expedient in the interest of justice that the order of sentence already undergone will suffice for the ends of justice for the alleged offence. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the sentence passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Dhanbad in R.P. Case No.100/94 is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone. It appears from the records that the petitioner has already availed the privilege of bail as per the order dated 19.09.2014 and as such, he is discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. With the above modification in sentence only, this application is dismissed. 10. Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court.