JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State of Jharkhand. 3. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 12.08.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2009 to the extent that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) has been affirmed against the petitioner. 4. The criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.08.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 399/2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 1974/2002 (T.R. No. 268/2009) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was held guilty for the offences under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and was convicted accordingly and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. However the learned appellate court upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court against the petitioner only for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 6. From perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the criminal revision application was admitted for final hearing on 17.06.2015 on the limited question of sentence only and not on merit. The petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to deposit of fine amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- in the court below on 23.06.2015. 7. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced his arguments only on the point of sentence of the petitioner. The petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to deposit of fine amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- in the court below on 23.06.2015. 7. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced his arguments only on the point of sentence of the petitioner. He submitted that the marriage had taken place as back as on 30.05.1996 and as per the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he was 35 years of age on 09.04.2009 and accordingly, at present the petitioner is aged about 45 years. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the F.I.R. in the present case is of 08.08.2002 and since then, more than 18 years have already elapsed. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned trial court had convicted the petitioner and other family members of the petitioner under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but the learned appellate court acquitted all the accused persons so far as the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned and also acquitted all other co-accused persons, except the petitioner, so far as the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is concerned. The learned counsel submitted that ultimately, the petitioner, the husband of the Informant, is the sole person whose conviction and sentence has remained i.e. for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C.. The learned counsel also submitted that although he is not arguing on the merits of the case in view of the order admitting the criminal revision petition which confined it only on the point of sentence of the petitioner, but the aspect that the petitioner has been convicted on general allegations may be considered while considering the point of sentence of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is also ready to give some amount by way of fine. He submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner may be modified. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State of Jharkhand, on the other hand, submitted that concurrent findings have been recorded by the learned courts below against the present petitioner so far as the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is concerned. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State of Jharkhand, on the other hand, submitted that concurrent findings have been recorded by the learned courts below against the present petitioner so far as the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is concerned. However, he did not dispute the fact that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1996 and the F.I.R. is of the year 2002 and at present, the petitioner would be around 45 years of age. It has also come in the learned trial court’s judgment that the present offence of the petitioner is his first offence. 10. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party- State also submitted that if this Court is inclined to modify the sentence, then the fine amount should be enhanced by not less than Rs.10,000/- and the amount may be directed to be paid to the victim of the case. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the present case has been admitted only on the point of sentence and the First Information Report was instituted as back as in the year 2002 and since then, more than 18 years have already elapsed and the petitioner has faced the rigours of the criminal case for a long time. This Court further finds from the trial court judgment that the present case against the petitioner is his first offence and the petitioner has faced the rigorous of criminal case for a long time. Admittedly, the petitioner’s conviction and sentence under section 498A only was sustained by the learned lower appellate court. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served, if the sentence of the petitioner for offence under Section 498(A) of I.P.C is modified by reducing the punishment to one-year Rigorous Imprisonment with additional fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The additional fine amount should be deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The learned trial court is directed to remit the total fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- ( 20,000/- + 5000/- imposed by learned court below) to the informant of the case upon due identification. The learned trial court is directed to remit the total fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- ( 20,000/- + 5000/- imposed by learned court below) to the informant of the case upon due identification. If the fine amount is not deposited as indicated above, the petitioner would serve the entire sentence imposed by the learned trial court. 13. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the sentence. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are cancelled. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 17. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned. 18. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/e-mail”.