JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Bishumbhar Shastri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand. 3. This criminal revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) whereunder the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, sentencing the petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under section 411 of Indian Penal Code in Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 102/02 dated 05.12.2002, G.R. No. 1040/2002, T.R. No. 301 of 2009 has been confirmed. 4. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he has expired during the pendency of this criminal revision and his name has been struck off vide order dated 25.08.2020. Arguments of the petitioners 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the implements, which were alleged to have been used for the purposes of digging of coal were never produced before the learned trial court as material exhibits and so far as coal is concerned, the same was alleged to have been recovered and handed over to the management of Central Coalfields Ltd., but neither any receipt of that handing over of the coal to Central Coalfields Ltd. has been exhibited, nor any official of the Central Coalfields Ltd. has been examined to substantiate that the recovered coal was handed over to the Central Coalfields Ltd.. He also submits that all the witnesses including seizure list witnesses in the present case are part of the raiding team and accordingly, they are interested witnesses. There is no independent witness and the investigating officer of the case has not been examined. He submits that in a case where all the witnesses are part of the raiding team, the evidence should have been carefully scrutinized by the learned trial court before convicting the petitioners and also by the learned appellate court while upholding the conviction of the petitioners. He submits that non-examination of investigating officer has seriously prejudiced the case of the present petitioners. 6. He submits that non-examination of investigating officer has seriously prejudiced the case of the present petitioners. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have remained in custody for a period from 06.12.2002 to 01.02.2003 and thereafter from 04.04.2014 to 30.04.2014 and as per the allegations, the petitioners were found to be in possession of illegal coal which was worth Rs.6,000/-. Arguments of the opposite party- State 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State Mr. Bishumbhar Shastri has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses including the seizure list witnesses have supported the prosecution case and non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the case. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned appellate court has considered the arguments of the petitioners regarding non-examination of the investigating officer as well as all the aspects of the matter and has passed a speaking order. He submits that there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity, nor any irregularity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, they do not call for any interference. 8. So far as the point of sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the fact that the present occurrence is of the year 2002 and the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent. He also does not dispute the fact that the petitioner no. 2 is at present 63 years of age as on the date of conviction in the year 2009, he was 52 years of age. So far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, he is at present 39 years of age. Findings of this court 9. The case of the prosecution as per the written report is that on 05.12.2002, the informant who is inspector of CISF alongwith other force, was in patrolling duty in old Makouli mines and he saw that some persons were doing illegal mining of coal. When informant party tried to catch them, then some of them fled away, but three persons were caught red handed. The informant seized digging articles such as Saval, Gaita, Farsa etc. and 7 tonnes of illegal coal worth Rs. 6,000/-. 10. Seizure list was prepared. When informant party tried to catch them, then some of them fled away, but three persons were caught red handed. The informant seized digging articles such as Saval, Gaita, Farsa etc. and 7 tonnes of illegal coal worth Rs. 6,000/-. 10. Seizure list was prepared. On the basis of the written report, police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Section 379/411 of Indian Penal Code and cognizance was also taken under these sections vide order dated 30.01.2003. Charges were framed under the same sections vide order dated 06.06.2005 and was read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. The prosecution produced five witnesses in this case and after the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused persons claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. 12. All the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 to 5 are the constables of CISF and on the alleged date and time of occurrence, they were members of the patrolling party in the leadership of the informant i.e. P.W. 1. 13. The learned trial court considered the evidence of the informant of the case i.e. P.W. 1, who has fully supported the prosecution case. As recorded in the trial court judgement, P.W. 2 , 3 and 4 proved their signatures on the seizure list which were marked as Exhibit- 1/1 ,1/2 and 1/3 respectively. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the case and the learned trial court, upon going through the prosecution evidences, recorded that there was consistent evidence of all four witnesses that during patrolling duty on 05.12.2002 at about 6 a.m., they saw some persons digging coal and on seeing the informant party, they fled away. Three of them were caught with digging articles and coal and seizure list was prepared. They claimed to have identified the accused and also claimed to identify the three accused on seeing who were not present and they were represented. The learned trial court also found that in cross-examination, there was no material contradiction and the witnesses were cross-examined by the defence at length. They claimed to have identified the accused and also claimed to identify the three accused on seeing who were not present and they were represented. The learned trial court also found that in cross-examination, there was no material contradiction and the witnesses were cross-examined by the defence at length. The learned trial court also recorded that nothing was brought on record by the defence that the informant or any other member of the patrolling party was inimical to the accused persons or they were interested in the accused persons in any other way. The learned trial court also considered the defence version that accused have been falsely implicated in this case as they were taking bath nearby the place of occurrence and rejected the same by observing that except taking suggestions from some prosecution witnesses, defence side has nothing brought on record to prove its contention that the accused persons were taking bath and they were forcibly caught by the informant party. The learned trial court further recorded that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the petitioners under Sections 379 as well as 411 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them only under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code for a period of two years Rigorous Imprisonment. 14. Before the learned appellate court, specific case of the petitioners was as under: “(i) That the learned court below has failed to consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses on record. There is serious contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the witnesses examined on behalf of the Informant are highly interested witnesses. (ii) That there is no independent witness to corroborate the fact and as such, the learned court below failed to properly appreciate their version. (iii) That the learned court below failed to consider that the I.O. of this case has not been examined and in the absence of evidence of I.O., the appellants have been highly prejudiced.” 15. (ii) That there is no independent witness to corroborate the fact and as such, the learned court below failed to properly appreciate their version. (iii) That the learned court below failed to consider that the I.O. of this case has not been examined and in the absence of evidence of I.O., the appellants have been highly prejudiced.” 15. The learned appellate court rejected the aforesaid arguments of the petitioners, discussed the evidences on record and gave finding that on general reading of evidence of the witnesses, it is apparent that all the witnesses examined before the trial court have supported the prosecution story as mentioned in the written report submitted by the Inspector of C.I.S.F.- P.W-1 and the defence during cross-examination brought nothing material which in any manner could go in favour of the petitioners. The learned appellate court also held that production-cum-seizure memo of digging implements such as sabal, gaita etc. including 7 tons of illegal coal worth Rs. 6000/- has been fully established and proved from oral evidence of the witnesses and the petitioners during trial have failed to explain their presence on the spot from where they were said to have been caught red-handed by the CISF personnel. 16. While appreciating the arguments regarding non- examination of investigating officer of the case and only interested witnesses being members of raiding party have been examined, the learned appellate court held that it is clear from the record that the accused were caught red-handed by the CISF personnel while they were digging coal from an old mine alongwith their implements produced before the police where seizure-production memo was prepared and this fact has been fully supported by the witnesses during trial before the court below. Though in this case, the I.O. has not been examined, but this fact alone will not help to the accused-appellant when there is consistent and trustworthy evidence of witnesses available on record. The learned appellate court upheld the judgement of the learned trial court by observing that the trial court had appreciated the materials on record and held all the appellants guilty for committing theft of illegal coal and recovery of it from their obvious possession and there was no clinching material to interfere with the judgment and conviction by the trial court. 17. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that so far as the argument of the petitioners regarding non-examination of investigating officer, the witnesses being police personnel and non-exhibiting of the seized articles as material exhibit before the learned trial court are concerned, all these aspects of the matter have been fully taken care of by the learned courts below who after appreciating the materials on record have given concurrent finding and convicted the petitioners. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements calling for any interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction, the present criminal revision application is dismissed so far as the conviction of the petitioners are concerned. 18. However, so far as the point of sentence is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be served, if the sentence is modified as the FIR in the present case was lodged as back as in the year 2002 and more than 18 years have elapsed and the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent as is apparent from the judgement of the learned trial court. Accordingly, sentence of the petitioners is hereby modified and reduced to a period of six months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The fine amount should be deposited before the learned court below within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement and in case of non-deposit of the fine amount, the petitioners would serve the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. 19. This criminal revision application is disposed of with aforesaid modification of sentence of the petitioners. 20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 21. Bail bond furnished by the petitioners are hereby cancelled. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 23. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/Email”.