IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.392 of 2011 RANJEET YADAV . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. ----------- 02 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th January, 2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria on Cr. Appeal no. 29 of 2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner along with another co-convict was considered and dismissed. Petitioner was put on trial vide Tr. No. 1912 of 2010 for having possessed with one country made loaded pistol and sentenced to under R.I. for 02 years and 06 months and R.I. for 02 years under Section 25(1-B) A and 26(1) of the Arms Act respectively with fine having default clause(s). Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.09.2010, the appeal was preferred which was considered and dismissed. According to the prosecution case on 15.07.2009, at about 1.25 pm the petitioner along with another co-convict were found loitering in suspicious manner. The patrolling party offered a chase and captivated them. It is the prosecution case that from the possession of the co- accused Rudal Yadav 07 pistols of different origins and 04 live cartridges of 8 MM and one country made pistol was/were found. From the possession of the petitioner one country made loaded pistol was found. All the arms and ammunitions were seized under seizure memos. On conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted leading to trial. At the trial 08 witnesses 2 were examined. The defence also examined 02 witnesses. On a consideration of the materials on record, the trial Court found that the charge(s) have been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as noticed hereinabove. Aggrieved by the said order the appeal was preferred. Learned lower appellate Court re- appraised the evidence on record and found that they were cogent enough to justify conviction of the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B) A and 26(1) of the Arms Act. From the perusal of the appellate Court judgment it appears that 08 witnesses were examined besides exhibiting documents including the materials exhibits. The witnesses to the seizure list PW’s 5 and 6 are on record stating admitting their signatures/L.T.Is on the seizure memo (Exhibits 1/A and 1/B). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arms and ammunitions were not property sealed and as such a doubt is created so far as recovery of arms and ammunitions from the possession of the petitioner is concerned. Reliance in this regard has been placed on AIR 1998 SC 1660 (Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab). He has, however, not pointed out with reference to the discussions made by the appellate Court about the said submissions of the appellant/petitioner. This Court from the judgment of appellate Court finds that the evidence on record were critically analyzed by the appellate Court and after consideration/ appraisal thereof it was held that conviction recorded against the petitioner is sustainable in law. There being concurrent findings of guilty recorded by the two Courts below and the consideration of the matter by both the Courts 3 below not shown to be patently illegal or perfunctory this Court is not inclined to interfere therewith. One aspect of the matter, however, needs consideration. It appears from the trial Court’s judgment that the petitioner was not found previously convicted. It further appears that at least for 01 year he had to face the rigours/ordeal of trial. At the time of recording conviction petitioner was found fairly young aged about 33 years. Having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves a lenient sentence. Accordingly while upholding the conviction recorded by the trial Court and duly affirmed by lower appellate Court, the sentence awarded under Sections 25(1-B)A, and 26(1) of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for 02 years under each head. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, imposed by lower appellate Court shall remain intact/untouched. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)