Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 30-5-2005, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, Chaibasa, in Cri. Appeal No. 56 of 2004, whereby and whereunder judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20-8-2004, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Porahat in G. R. Case No. 267 of 2002, by which petitioners has been convicted for the offence under Section 411 of IPC and has been sentenced them to undergo R. I. for one year, has been affirmed.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case as none of the independent witnesses have supported the allegation levelled against the petitioners of committing theft. It has further been submitted that Test Identification Parade was not held according to the norms as the exact description of the stolen articles were not given and therefore it cannot be said that the articles, which were recovered from the possession of the petitioners, were actually the stolen properties. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is to inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, then at least sentence may be modified suitably considering the fact that petitioners are facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2002 and have also remained in custody for sometime.;