IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.113 of 2011 WAKIL MANDAL SON OF BHUMI MANDAL, R/O- KHAIRPUR, P.S.- THANA BIHPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. D. Nandan, APP 3 03.02.2011 Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7.10.2010 passed on his appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 131/2006 whereby the appeal preferred by him has been rejected upholding the judgment and order dated 31.10.2006 passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in G.R. No. 1972/95/Tr. No. 76 of 2006 whereby he was found and held guilty under Section 25(1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one and a half years and S.I. for 06 months respectively. In respect of an occurrence committed on 14.11.1995, the petitioner was tried for having possessed with one country made pistol. Seven (07) prosecution witnesses were examined to substantiate the charge. On a consideration of the materials, learned Trial Court found and held him guilty under the aforesaid charges and inflicted sentence as noticed hereinabove. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred appeal which stood rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure list witnesses namely P.Ws 5 and 6 have not supported the prosecution case in toto. It is submitted that for an occurrence that was committed on 14.11.1995, the petitioner - 2 - had to undergo the ordeals of trial for about 11 years. For all these years, he was made to reel under the threat of being punished. It is the submission of the petitioner that fighting criminal litigation for such a long time is a shade of punishment which has to be kept in focus while inflicting punishment for the proven charges. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below. Referring to the appellate Court order, it is submitted that P.Ws. 5 and 6 have admitted their signatures appearing on the seizure lists (Exts. 1/1 and 1/2 ). It is thus submitted that the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below cannot be said to be wholly perverse. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It is seen from the two judgments that both the Courts below have relied on evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 in view of the fact that they have not denied their signatures/LTIs appearing on the seizure memos (Exts. 1/1 and 1/2). This pertains to appraisal of evidence by both the Courts below in the light of attending evidence/materials adduced/brought on their record and as such the same cannot be said to be perverse. Next submission of Learned counsel for the petitioner requires consideration. It appears that for more than 11 years, he had to face the criminal trial. The Trial Court found him guilty - 3 - by judgment and order dated 31.10.2006. Thereafter the appeal remained pending for close to four years. At the time of conviction, petitioner was assessed 45 years of age. From the Trial Court’s judgment, this Court is able to decipher that a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that he is the first convict and only bread earner in the family. Having regard to these facts appearing from the records, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the sentence awarded under Section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for one year. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact/untouched. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)