IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1374 of 2011 Rahul Singh, S/O Late Ram Singh, Resident of Village- Salakhua, P.S.- Amanour, Distt.- Saran at Chapra. ……..Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ………Opposite Party ----------- 3. 25.11.2011 It appears from the supplementary affidavit (flag ‘A’) filed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody since 1.10.2010 and he has not been released up-till-now. Supplementary affidavit is accepted instead of certified copy of the surrender order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be disposed of at this stage. The learned counsel for the State has got no objection. Heard Mr. Amarendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nirmal Kumar, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Appeal No.62/2011 by which the judgment and order dated 27.08.2011 passed by the learned 2 Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chapra in Trial No.2289/2011 arising out of Marhaura P.S. Case No.161/2010 has been affirmed with some modification in the sentence and the appeal has been disposed of. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.09.2010 at about 1.20 A.M., the informant received confidential information that Rahul Singh (petitioner) wearing white shirt and pant, who is an accused of Marhaura P.S. Case No.145/2010 was present near Marhaura Railway Station and waiting for some one to sell stolen motorcycle and for wheeler. Thereafter, the police party went at the place of occurrence and saw a youth in white shirt and pant and called him. Seeing the police party, the petitioner tried to flee away, but was caught by the police party. In presence of two witnesses, a searched was made upon which a country made pistol loaded with .315 bore one live cartridge was found from the left side of waist of the petitioner and from right pocket, a spice mobile having reliance double SIM was also recovered. On demand by the informant, no documents regarding the country made pistol and mobile could be produced. Thereafter, a seizure list was prepared, which was signed by two independent witnesses and gave a copy of the 3 seizure list to the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid self statement of the informant, Marhaura P.S. Case No.161/2010 was instituted under Section 25 (1B)a and 26 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. Charge was framed under Section 25 (1B)a/26 of the Arms Act against the petitioner to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and S.I. for one year and the period already undergone in custody shall be set off from the total sentence with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of default of making payment, the petitioner will further undergo S.I. for one month. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No.62/2011 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, III, Saran at Chapra. After hearing both the parties, the learned appellate court upheld the judgment of conviction and modified the order of sentence to one year and six months R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already been in custody for more than 13 months. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the petitioner is a poor person. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence of the petitioner should be reduced/modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs.500/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- in the trial court and file a receipt thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner will be released, if not required in any other case. With this modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Let this order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioner. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)