IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1939 of 2009 1. GANGA PRASAD,son of Mangaru Bind. 2. Mangaru Bind, son of late Darogi Bind. Both residents of village-Dighat, P.S.-Chenari, District-Rohtas. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 12-01-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 17-09-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- F.T.C.-III, Rohtas at Sasaram in Criminal Appeal No.40/2004, by which he has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order dated 06-12-2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in G.R.No.478 of 2001, Tr.No.1446/2004, whereby he had convicted the petitioners and awarded them sentence under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(i) of the Arms Act and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of two months under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment of two years and simple imprisonment of two months under Section 26(i) of the Arms Act. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Sentence is only pressed and on that point it is said that a country made pistol was recovered from possession of petitioner no.1 while three cartridges were recovered from petitioner no.2, both son and father. Petitioner no.1 remained in custody for a period of near about nine months while petitioner no.2 remained in custody more than a month. Liberty on the point of sentence has been sought on the 2 ground that petitioner no.2 is at present 70 years old and only cartridge was recovered and son petitioner no.1 remained in custody for a period of nine months. No doubt, it is a simple case of having in possession of country made pistol and cartridge and there is no other involvement but never justifying to come below minimum even considering the age of petitioner no.2. Minimum punishment is prescribed and that is one year. Really petitioners are entitled for that. Accordingly sentence is modified and minimized to the period of one year. With such observation this revision application is dismissed confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )