IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.842 of 2010 SHANKAR CHAURASIA, SON OF LATE BAHRU CHAURASIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAISA POLICE STATION-PARBATTA, DISTRICT KHAGARIA …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. Dr. Amrendra Kumar & :Mr. Ravi S. Pankaj For the State :Mr. Matloob Ram, APP ----------- 2. 19.01.2011 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, the application is now being finally disposed of. The petitioner herein was charged under section 25(1-B) A, 26 of the Arms Act and tried, vide T.R.No.84/2005. Learned trial court (ACJM Khagaria) by order dated 05.09.2005, found and held him guilty under those sections and sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years under each count. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.25 of 2005. Learned appellate court re-appraised the evidence on record and concurred with the findings of guilt. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2000. The petitioner had to fight the criminal litigation for about five 2 years. Admittedly, the trial court has not found any criminal antecedent as would appear from paragraph 13 of the judgment of the trial court. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment which has to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the prove charge(s). On these facts appearing from records, it is submitted that the petitioner deserve a lessor quantum of punishment. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. This much is evident that the petitioner had no previous conviction to his credit. It further appears that he had to contest the criminal litigation for about five years. For all these five years he had to reel under the threat of being punished which is a relevant consideration. Having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from records, this court is satisfied that a lessor quantum of sentence shall, in the facts and circumstances of the case, subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, the sentence recorded under section 25(1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act, is reduced to R.I. for one-and-a-half years(1 ½ years). Other part(s) of 3 the judgment and order of appellate court, if any, remain unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )