IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.198 of 2011 RAM BHAROS SHARMA S/O- LATE LAKHAN SHARMA OF VILLAGE- SHIVANA MUSHAHARI, P.S.- BAKHRI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI, BIHAR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Abhishek, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mani Madhukar, A.P.P. ----------- 2 22.02.2011 Heard. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.8.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Cr. Appeal No. 18/2008 whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction dated 3.5.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khagaria in Tr.. No. 1520 of 2008 was confirmed. Petitioner was held guilty by the Trial Court under Section 25(1-B)a and 26(i) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine having default clause under each count. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 5) have not supported the prosecution case. Rest of the witnesses were police officials. Learned Appellate Court has considered the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner and found and in my view rightly, that there is no rule and law in getting the evidence 2 of the police officials rejected or brushed aside simply because they are the police officials. Appreciation of such evidence has to be made based on the circumstances of the case. It has been found that P.Ws 1 and 5 have admitted their signatures/L.T.I. on the seizure memo in course of their depositions. The submission of the petitioner that they cannot be relied upon in view of their subsequent statements/depositions, in my view, is also not sustainable in law. It is next contended that occurrence had taken place on 13.9.1998. The trial consumed more than 10 years when the Trial Court recorded conviction on 3.5.2008. It is submitted that fighting criminal litigation for a long time and thereby to face vagaries of trial is a shade of punishment which the petitioner had already undergone. Referring to the Trial Court’s judgment, it is submitted that admittedly no past conviction was found recorded against the petitioner. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, supported the two judgments. It is submitted there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below based on appraisal of evidence which cannot be said to be perverse or patently illegal. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also gone through the materials on record. The submission of learned A.P.P. appears to be right. Both the Courts below have appraised the evidence and found that the materials on record would justify conviction for the charges he was tried. One aspect of the matter, however, requires consideration. It is 3 found from the materials on record that for about 10 years, the petitioner had to undergo the rigours/ordeal of trial and thereby face several excruciating circumstances which definitely is a shade of punishment and to be kept in focus while inflicting punishment for the proven charges. It is seen from the record that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents as there is no past conviction found and recorded against him. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would sub- serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court and duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, the sentence inflicted under Section 25(1-B)a and 26(i) of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for 02 years under each head. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )