IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1213 of 2011 Sanoj Paswan son of Mahanth Paswan, resident of village- Laguniya, P.S. Paharpur, District- East-Champaran. .. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opp. Party ----------- 2. 23.09.2011 The accused – petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Bettiah, West Champaran in Cr. Appeal No. 28 of 2010 by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 30.3.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in G. R. No. 3105 of 2009, Trial No. 1228 of 2010 convicting and sentencing the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 25(1-B) a of the Arms Act and also further rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months and all the sentences to run concurrently, has been affirmed. Heard Mr. Suraj Prasad Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 this application may be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Learned counsel for the State has got no objection. Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 213 of 2009 was instituted against the accused including the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge- sheet was submitted. Accused including the petitioner has been charged under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. After trial accused including the petitioner were found guilty. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Sections 25(1-B) a and 26 of the Arms Act each and in case of default in payment of fine six months simple imprisonment and the accused, Nandu Ram was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act each and in default of payment of fine six months simple imprisonment and all the sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner was also held guilty under Section 35 of the Arms Act, but no separate sentence was passed under Section 35 3 of the Arms Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 28 of 2010. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court has been affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been in custody for about two years i.e. he has been in custody since 19.11.2009. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner has already suffered mental agony and in such circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner should be modified. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The petitioner has served the sentence for about two years and he is still in custody. Considering the facts and 4 circumstances, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence can be modified and accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is directed to be released from custody, if not wanted in any other case. In the result, this application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)