IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1419 of 2010 RAM NARESH SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 05 03.01.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally disposed of at this Stage itself. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. V, Jehanabad in Cr. Appeal no. 37 of 2006 whereby his appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2006 passed in Tr. No. 1551 of 2006 was considered and dismissed. Petitioner was charged under Section 25(1-B) A & 26 (1) of the Arms Act in respect of an occurrence that had taken place on 15.06.2005. As per the prosecution case in course of search made in the house of the petitioner two country made pistols and 10 live cartridges kept concealed under husk were recovered. Accordingly arms and ammunitions were seized under seizure memo(s) and the petitioner was put on trial. At the trial 09 prosecution witnesses were examined. It appears that PWs 4 to 8 did not support the prosecution case. PWs 2, 3 and 9 supported the prosecution case. The prosecution brought on record the seizure memos Ext. 2, 2/1 and 2/2 which bore signatures of independent seizure witnesses. PWs 4 and 5 in course of their deposition accepted 2 their signatures appearing on these Exhibits but thereafter they did not support the prosecution case. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial Court found and held him guilty under Section 25(1-B)A and 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine having default clause(s) under each count. Aggrieved thereby petitioner preferred aforesaid appeal. Learned appellate Court re-evaluated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the findings of guilty recorded by learned trial Court do not require any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses who have supported the prosecution case are police personnels. Other witnesses, namely PWs 4 to 8 did not support the prosecution case in toto. It is next contended that although a submission was made that he is facing accusations in another case but there is nothing on record to show that he has been held guilty thereunder. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that learned lower appellate Court has given adequate reasons in paragraph no. 10 for non support of prosecution case by some of the witnesses. It is submitted that placing reliance on the seizure memo in the light of evidence of PWs 4 and 5 cannot be said to be perverse. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the findings of guilt recorded by two Courts below are based on appraisal of 3 evidence. A view has been taken by the Court below on appraisal of evidence which cannot be said to be perverse. This Court, however, finds although it has been recorded in the trial Court’s judgment that he is facing charge in another criminal case but there is no materials on record to show that he has been held guilty thereunder. The petitioner has already suffered in fighting criminal litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is presently aged about 65 years. There is, however, no materials on record to support the aforesaid stand. This Court has, however, no reason to disbelieve the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is fairly aged person. Having regard to all these facts, this Court is satisfied that a lenient view, so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, shall sub serve the cause of justice. Accordingly while upholding the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial Court and duly affirmed by learned lower appellate Court, the sentence recorded under Sections 25(1-B) A and 26(1) of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for 02 years under each count. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence(s), if any, imposed by appellate Court shall remain intact/untouched. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)