IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.409 of 2011 PURENDRA SINGH S/O- LATE BHOLA SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE BALIHAR, P.S.- SIMARI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate Mr. Umakant Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ----------- 3 19.04.2011 After hearing the parties, this Court is satisfied that the matter requires consideration on the question of sentence. Hence Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of parties, the application is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. Sole petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.9.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. II, Buxar on Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was considered and dismissed but with modification in sentence. The Trial Court held the petitioner guilty under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 and a half years with fine having default clause under Section 29 of the Act and R.I. for 04 months with fine having default under Section 30 of the Act. Learned Lower 2 Appellate Court reduced the sentence of the petitioner under Section 29 of the Act to undergo R.I. for one and a half years with fine having default clause. Under Section 30 of the Act, the petitioner was inflicted sentence of 3 months with reduced amount of fine having default clause. As per the F.I.R., the informant on the date of occurrence i.e. on 10.11.2002 went to the village in question in connection with Simari P.S. Case No. 144 of 2002. He was heading a raiding team on the relevant day. House of one Antu Sah was raided and searched. One D.B.B.L. gun and 06 live cartridges of .12 bore and 10 empty cartridges of .12 bore were found stored beneath the bed of the said person. Accordingly, those arms and ammunitions were seized. It was revealed that the said arm belonged to the petitioner. An F.I.R. was accordingly lodged igniting investigation, on conclusion whereof, chargesheet was submitted leading to trial. At the trial, 08 witnesses were examined besides exhibiting documents in support thereof. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced in the manner indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved thereof, he preferred appeal which stood dismissed with modification in sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the judgments, submitted that conviction under 3 Section 30 of the Arms Act would be a nullity since there is already a provision under Section 29 of the Act which takes account of the offence which is said to have been committed by the petitioner. It is next contended that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2002. The petitioner had to suffer rigours/ordeals of trial for about 5 years when ultimately the Trial Court found and held him guilty by judgment and order of conviction dated 23.2.2007. Thereafter the appeal remained pending for close to 03 years. It is contended that fighting criminal litigation for such a long time is a shade of punishment and the Court has to keep the same in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). Referring to the Trial Court judgment, it is submitted that it is not reflected therefrom that the petitioner was earlier convicted for any criminal case. It is contended that at the time of recording conviction, he was found aged about 55 years. On considering these aspects of the matter, the petitioner deserves lesser quantum of sentence. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, supported the two judgments which are being impugned in the present petition. It is contended that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below based on appraisal of evidence on record which cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal. With regard to the submission of the petitioner 4 that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction under Section 30 of the Act was unwarranted, it is submitted that the same shall have no effect since for the said offence, the petitioner has been awarded lesser sentence. The petitioner has to undergo sentence for the charge punishable under Section 29 of the Act. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. The submissions of the petitioner that conviction recorded under Section 29 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is bad in law and/or unwarranted may have some legs to stand but they are not required to be considered in the present case as the petitioner is not prejudiced on that count. Adverting to next submission of the petitioner, this Court finds that at the time of recording conviction, the petitioner was found aged close to 55 years. It is not reflected from the judgments under revision particularly the Trial Court judgment that any submission was advanced that the petitioner is not the first convict. It is also seen that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2002 and the petitioner had to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial for close to five years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time and thereby to face several excruciating/exasperating circumstances have telling effects on the mental and economic condition of the litigant. It is a 5 shade of punishment. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the petitioner deserves lesser quantum of sentence and the ends of justice shall be met if the sentence is reduced. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and duly affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, conviction recorded against the petitioner under Section 29 of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for 09 months. The fine imposed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. In case of default in paying the fine, the petitioner shall have to undergo further period of R.I. for 45 days. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remained intact/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)