IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1288 of 2009 CHANERAMAULI YADAV @ MAULI YADAV, son of Dhirik Yadav, resident of village-Tartar, P.S.-Ghoswari, District-Patna-----------Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ---------- 8. 3.11.2009 Heard the parties. Petitioner is found in possession of a country made pistol along with eight cartridges though not found from the conscious possession rather from his house. Charge was framed for several offences under Arms Act and an attempt has been made by the appellate court for reaching the real offence but confusion remained there. Conscious possession has been doubted but conviction ultimately is not challenged. So, no question arises about any deviation that petitioner was not in conscious possession of the fire arms and cartridges. Section 25(1-B)(a) provides for possession or contravention of section 3 which only applies in this case. So confusion is removed hereby and it is concluded that only offence under which petitioner is convicted and sentences is 25(1- B)(a ) of the Arms Act. In this revision only sentence is questioned referring petitioner’s remaining in custody since 25.7.2007. So petitioner remained in custody for a period more than two years. Though it is petitioner’s second offence but nature of the weapon is a country made pistol. So, in my view, it appears that period undergone by the petitioner is sufficient towards sentence. Accordingly, the appellate court’s, i.e., Addl. Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Barh, Patna, order dated - 2 - 27.6.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal no.134 of 2008 is affirmed. This revision petition is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence that period undergone by the petitioner is sufficient towards the sentence. Petitioner, who is accused in connection with Ghoswari P.S. case no.25 of 2006, is directed to be released forthwith if not an accused in any other case. sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )