IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.363 of 2010 BIJAY YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 31.3.2010 This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. I, Lakhisarai in Cr.Appeal No. 95/2007 who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.7.2007 passed by Sri Rakesh Chandra Srivastava, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 114/2006, G.R.No. 254/2006/Tr.no.1728/07 whereby he convicted the petitioner under sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years as well as fine of Rs. 1,000/- and R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively with a direction to serve out sentences concurrently. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel has pressed only to minimize the sentence and submitted that for a simple recovery of a country made pistol with cartridge, the petitioner has been sentenced for two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- and also 2 again two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act. For a single act of recovery, the sentences under both the sections i.e. sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms are not justified. There is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner who undertakes about no repetition of offence. He has remained in custody for a period of about seven months which may be observed sufficient towards sentence exonerating from the liability of fine. Circumstances pointed out by learned counsel, certainly entitles petitioner for liberal view but not less than minimum of one year as laid down by the legislation. This revision application is allowed in part on the point of sentence only which is minimized to one year from two years exonerating from fine. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)