IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.336 of 2010 DASHRATH SHARMA S/O LATE RUP LAL SHARMA ---- PETITIONER . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar No.3, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 04 26.11.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.11.2009 passed on Cr. Appeal no. 01/09 by learned Sessions Judge Samastipur whereby the appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence. Petitioner was put on trial for charges punishable under Section 25(1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act vide T.R. No. 80 of 2008. At the trial 04 prosecution witnesses were examined. The defence also examined 04 DWs. On a consideration of the materials brought on record, learned trial Court found him guilty under Section 25(1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years with fine having default clause(s) under each count. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed with modification in sentence whereby the sentence awarded by learned trial Court was reduced to R.I. for 01 and ½ years with reduced amount of fine having default clause(s). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two seizure list witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. He draws attention of the Court to paragraph no.8 of the appellate judgment 2 wherefrom it appears that one of them supported the preparation of seizure memo but deposed to the effect that the same was not prepared in his presence. Another defence witness has also deposed in similar terms. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court, however, have placed reliance on the depositions of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4,who are the informant, constable, Investigating Officer and the Sergeant major who tested the weapons and submitted report respectively. From the deposition of DWs the Courts below have discerned this much that the memo of seizure was prepared after raid having been committed by the raiding team consisting of the police personnels. Reliance placed on the evidence of the PWs for convicting the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that at the time of recording conviction learned trial Court assessed the petitioner aged about 62 years. It is next contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and that he is now close to 70 years of age. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, should be taken. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgments and orders. It is contended that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below based on appraisal of evidence on record which cannot be said to be perverse. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. The deposition of the police personnel, if found trustworthy cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the witnesses on seizure 3 were not produced. Experience shows that these days witnesses are reluctant in turning up for evidence and there is growing tendency to gain over them. This much is evident from the deposition of DWs 2 and 3 that raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner whereafter a memo respecting seizure was prepared on which they put signature/L.T.I.. Contention of the petitioner that the judgment suffers from perversity, in my view, does not hold good. Next submission of the petitioner needs consideration. Petitioner was found more than 62 years of age at the time of recording conviction. He had to undergo the rigours/ordeal of trial for about 03 years. Admittedly there is no past conviction found by learned trial Court. Having regard to this aspect of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence would meet the ends of justice. Consequently while upholding the judgment and order under revision, this Court reduces the sentence from R.I. 01 and ½ years to R.I. for 01 years. The other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence as awarded by learned lower appellate Court shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)