IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1576 of 2010 1. WOKIL MANDAL @ VAKEEL MANDAL 2. MAKESHWAR MANDAL Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR Opposite party For the petitioners :Mr. Krishna Mohan & :Mr.Praveen Kumar For the State :Mr. Jharkhandhi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 15.11.2010 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is now finally disposed of. The two petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2010, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Katihar in Cr. Appeal No.130/2006 upholding the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar on 31.10.2006, whereby they were held guilty under section 25(1-B)a and 26(1) read with section 35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under each count with fine having default clause. At the trial the prosecution seems to have examined 11 witnesses in order to prove the charge(s) besides exhibiting documents to prove the same. On a consideration of materials on record, learned trial court found that charges framed against the petitioners are proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. Aggrieved thereby, they filed appeal which was dismissed by learned lower appellate court. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were found fairly young persons at the time of conviction. Learned trial court has found that there was no criminal antecedent against the petitioners. It is next contended that occurrence had taken place on 26.12.2002 and the petitioners had to fight the litigation for about four years. Fighting a criminal litigation for a long time and thereby undergoing ordeal/rigours of trial is a shade of punishment which needs to be kept in focus while inflicting the sentence for the proven charge(s). It is thus contended that petitioners deserve a lessor quantum of sentence. Learned APP, on the other hand submitted that there is/are concurrent finding of guilt recorded by two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or wholly illegal meriting any interference. I have heard both sides. Petitioners were found aged between 30-38 years. It is further seen from the trial court judgment that they were not proceeded against and punished earlier for any offence. It is also seen from the two orders that trial consumed more than four years. Having regard to these aspects of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lessor punishment/sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction recorded by learned trial court and affirmed by lower appellate 3 court, the sentence awarded under section 25(1-B)a and 26(1) read with section 35 of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for two (02) years. The fine imposed under section 25(1-B) a and 26(1) of the Arms act is also reduced from Rs.5000/- to Rs. 1000/- under each count. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain unchanged/unaltered. The application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )