IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.705 of 2010 LAXMAN THAKUR …PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner : Mr. Anshuman & : Mrs. Rita Kumari Upadhyaya For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyaya,APP ----- 02. 04.10.2010 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is now being disposed of. In view of submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, facts in detail need not be set out which led to filing of the present case. On 07.04.2004, the police on getting confidential information reached the house of the petitioner. He was seen escaping therefrom. A chase was offered and he was captivated. On search being conducted of the room occupied by the petitioner, one country-made pistol was found kept beneath the pillow. Further search found two country-made pistols kept concealed beneath the wooden almirah. He was accordingly charge-sheeted and put on trial. 11 P.Ws. were examined. Several exts. as well as materials exts. were also produced. On a consideration of materials on record, learned trial court by judgment and order dated 28.03.2006 passed in Tr. No.1347/06 observed as under: “Accused was present at the time of search 2 and seizure and in presence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 seizure list was prepared and copy of same was furnished to accused and accused has never denied his signature on seizure list and he only took defence that some other person may have planted the Arms at the P.O. but he has been kept mum about his bed at chowki and recovery of M.Ext.1. After carefully scrutinizing the materials/evidence available on record I find the persecution has been able to bring home the charges levelled against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubts” Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the petitioner preferred criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal No.15/06. Learned appellate court in the light of the grounds disclosed in the memo of appeal, considered the same and re-scanned the evidence on record and thereby concurred with the finding(s) recorded by learned trial court. Accordingly, his conviction under section 25(1-B) a and 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentence to undergo R.I. for three years with fine having default clause were maintained. Counsel for the petitioner, referring to judgment of learned trial court, submits that at the time of conviction he was found close to 55 years. It is also contended that learned trial court did not find any criminal antecedent and/or past conviction against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is now aged about 60 years. It is next contended that he had to fight the criminal litigation for over two years and thereby suffer excruciating circumstances which is/are a shade of punishment. It is thus contended that the petitioner deserves a lessor punishment for proven charge(s). 3 Counsel for the State, however, supported the two impugned judgments. It is contended that learned trial court has found that P.Ws.4 and 5 have admitted their signatures on the seizure memo (Ext.1), a copy whereof was duly furnished under the L.T.I./signature to the petitioner-accused. It is the contention of learned APP that finding(s) of guilt recorded by the two courts below cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Definitely, the petitioner was 55 years of age at the time of conviction. He must be 60 years of age by now. Learned trial court records that there is no past conviction. In that view of the matter, a lessor punishment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the cause of justice Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction recorded by learned trial court and duly affirmed by learned lower appellate court, this Court reduces the sentence of R.I. for three years under section 25(1-B) and 26(1) of the arms Act to R.I. for two and half years under each count. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )