IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1535 of 2010 SAJJAD ANSARI Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner :Mr. Ran Pratap Singh,Sr Advocate, :Mr. Sumant Singh & :Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad For the State :Mr. J. Upadhyay,APP ----------- 2. 27.10.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of. Petitioner assails the appellate order dated 01.09.2010, whereby his appeal has been dismissed with modification in sentence. Petitioner was tried for offence(s) punishable under section 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act for having possessed with one country-made loaded pistol and one gun along with 30-40 live cartridges. He was accordingly tried. At the trial nine prosecution witnesses were examined to prove the charge(s). On a consideration of materials available on record, learned trial court found and held him guilty under the aforesaid charges and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two and half years with fine under each count. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 53/2010 which was partly allowed by order dated 01.09.2010 The sentence under section 25(1-B)a was reduced to R.I. for two years with fine having default clause. So far as charge 2 under section 26(1) of the Arms Act is concerned, the same was found not to have substantiated and, as such, conviction recorded thereunder was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner continues to incarcerate since the date of occurrence (05.04.2009). He draws attention of the Court to the order of learned trial court as well as lower appellate court in order to show that he was not granted bail at any point of time. It is contended that petitioner had to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial for one year which is relevant consideration insofar as sentence for the proven charge(s) is/are concerned. It is also contended with reference to the judgment that he did not carry any murky past. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below which have not been shown to be perverse and as such they do not call for any interference. Having considered the submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case a lessor punishment would subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence recorded under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for 20 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall remain untouched/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )