IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1010 of 2011 Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Kumar son of Nanhku Yadav, resident of village- Chhota Korean, P.S. Asarganj, District Munger. .. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opp. Party. ----------- 4. 28.09.2011 The accused- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 29.6.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr. Appeal No. 55 of 2011 by which the judgment and order of sentence dated 7.5.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in G. R. Case No. 315 of 2004, Trial No. 558 of 2011 arising out of Asarganj P. S. Case No. 30 of 2004 has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7.3.2004 during patrolling duty the informant and other police personnel saw a man running away near Hanuman Temple Masumganj Chowk at Korien Road. After chase and with the aid and assistance of the villagers, the man was apprehended in front of the house of Lalan Singh and he disclosed his name to be Sunil Kumar (petitioner). On search of the person of 2 the petitioner a loaded country made rifle was recovered and seized but he did not produce any paper for retaining those arms and ammunition. Asarganj P. S. Case No. 30 of 2004 was instituted against the petitioner. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the cognizance was taken. After trial , the petitioner was held guilty under Section 25(1- B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act and accordingly he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a and to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, he will undergo further imprisonment for two months and all the sentences to run concurrently. Against which, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 55 of 2011 before the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial court has been confirmed. Mr. Karuna Nath Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lower court records have already been received and 3 this application can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Mr. Dinesh Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State has got no objection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the first offender and he has no criminal antecedent. The occurrence has taken place on 7.3.2004. The petitioner has been suffering from mental agony for more than seven years and he has also remained in custody for more than one year. The petitioner deserves that his sentence should be modified. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner while opposing the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. The occurrence has taken place on 7.3.2004 and the petitioner has been suffering from mental agony. He has also served out the sentence for more than one year. 4 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner deserves that his sentence should be modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is still in custody and he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. In the result, this application is dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)