IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.907 of 2010 SURESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAMADHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – PALI, P.S.- DEHRI, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mrs Veena Rani Prasad, A.P.P. ----------- 2 30.06.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, this revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-I, Sasaram in Cr. Appeal no. 75 of 2001 whereby the same was dismissed affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.7.2001 recorded by the learned Trial Court in Tr. no. 167/2001. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the order which this Court proposes to pass, relevant facts of the case may not be dealt with in detail. It would suffice if the broader aspects of the case is/are outlined. On an information given to the police by P.W. 7, petitioner was captivated in the intervening night of 21st/22nd December, 1996 and was found in possession of a loaded country made pistol kept in his pocket. Resultantly he was 2 booked and put on trial where as many as eight (08) witnesses were examined. Learned Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 25.7.2001 found and held him guilty under Section 25(1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year and 6 months respectively. He was also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count with default clause. The appeal of the petitioner failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had to undergo the ordeal of trial for about 15 years. Referring to the judgment and order recorded by the learned Trial Court, it is submitted that admittedly there is no material on record to indicate that he was previously convicted. In fact, learned Trial Court has recorded the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he was the first offender. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a relevant aspect which need to be kept in focus while imposing sentence for the charges for which he has been held guilty. This Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that fighting a criminal litigation for such a long period of time and thereby labouring under the threat of being punished, is a shade of punishment which is a relevant consideration. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, this Court is satisfied that a lesser punishment 3 shall meet the ends of justice. Consequently the punishment recorded under Section 25(1-B)A of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to six (06) months R.I. in place of one (01) year . Other parts of the sentence shall remain unaltered. With this modification in sentence, this revision application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )