IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1602 of 2010 1. NANHAK YADAV SON OF RAM DHEYAN YADAV 2. RAM DHEYAN YADAV SON OF LATE DHANISH DHARI YADAV, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- UTTARPATTI, P.S.- SAKURABAD IN THE DISTRICT OF JEHANABAD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . For the petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP 2 09.11.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The two petitioners are son and father respectively. They have been charged and held guilty under Section 25(1-b)a and 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act by the learned Trial Court in G.R. Case no. 1062/2004(Tr. No. 1274/2006). Petitioner no. 1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine having default clause under both the counts. Petitioner no. 2 was found aged about 85 years at the time of recording conviction by the learned Trial Court and accordingly he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years with fine having default clause. Their appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 52/2006/03/2008 was rejected by judgment dated 31.7.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge,F.T.C.-IV, Jehanabad. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have approached this Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the two seizure list witnesses namely P.Ws. 4 and 5 have not supported the prosecution case. It is further contended that - 2 - petitioner no. 2 is presently aged about 90 years and is suffering from diverse diseases. It is further highlighted that the petitioners had to fight the criminal litigation for about 02 years when the Trial Court recorded conviction on 24.7.2006. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, referring to paragraph 11 of the Appellate Court’s judgment, states that the seizure list witnesses have not denied their signatures/L.T.I. appearing on the seizure list which have been marked as Exts. 1/2 and 1/3. It is contended that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by both the Courts below based on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution which cannot be said to be perverse meriting interference. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Petitioner no. 2 is the father of petitioner no. 1. Learned Trial Court did not find any criminal antecedent against him. At the time of conviction, he was found aged about 85 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, right in his submission that he is above 90 years of age presently. It is further seen from the record that although fire arm was/were recovered from their possession but the same were found unloaded. It is further seen from the record that they had to fight criminal litigation for 02 years when their initial conviction was recorded and thereafter for another 04 years when their appeal was dismissed. These factors are relevant for imposing - 3 - appropriate sentence for the proven charge(s). In my view, the cause of justice shall be sub-served if the quantum of sentence imposed upon them is reduced. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and order under revision, the sentence awarded on petitioner no. 1 is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 ½ years under each count. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, his sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 01 year under each count. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence imposed by learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned lower Appellate Court shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)