IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1228 of 2010 DIWAKAR SAH . --- PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR . --- OPP. PARTY ----------- 02 25.04.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of parties, the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner along with others was tried for charge(s) punishable under Sections 25(1-B) A and 26(1) of the Arms Act vide Tr. No. 1047 of 2008. According to the prosecution case, they were seen riding on a motorcycle. A chase was offered whereafter they were captivated. It is alleged that from the possession of the petitioner one country made pistol and 01 cartridge were recovered. At the trial 07 prosecution witnesses were produced besides exhibiting documents to prove the case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. On a consideration of the matter, the petitioner was held guilty under Sections 25(1-B) A and 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years with fine and R.I. for 01 years with fine respectively having default clause(s). Aggrieved by the said order he preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal 97 of 2008 which was dismissed by order dated 29. 06.2010. While assailing the impugned judgment(s), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken 2 place on 23.10.2000. The trial consumed close to 08 years. For all these years he had to undergo the ordeal/rigour of trial. At the time of conviction he was found aged about 27 year only. It is not apparent from the trial Court’s judgment or the appellate Court’s judgment that he was previously held guilty for any criminal charge(s). It is, thus, contended that petitioner deserves lesser quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, 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 or patently illegal. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the petitioner had to face the ordeal/rigours of trial for 08 years. Fighting criminal litigation is a shade of punishment as during this period the petitioner had to undergo several exasperating circumstances. Reeling under the threat of being punished for such a long time itself is a shade of punishment. It does not appear from the two judgments that he was earlier convicted for any criminal charge. This Court, thus, is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s) would, in the facts and circumstances of the case, sub serve the ends of justice. Accordingly while upholding the conviction recorded by trial Court and duly affirmed by lower appellate Court the conviction recorded under Section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act is 3 reduced to R.I. for one year and 04 months. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence, if any, imposed by lower appellate Court shall remain intact /unaltered. With this modification in sentence only, the revision application is dismissed. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)