IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1136 of 2010 1. MUKESH KUMAR @ MUKESH KUMAR YADAV, S/O- ARJUN PD. SINGH 2. PAWAN KUMAR YADAV, S/O- LATE ANANDI PD. YADAV. 3. ANIL YADAV S/O- BINDESHWARI YADAV. 4. SUBODH YADAV S/O- MATRU YADAV 5. PREMCHAND YADAV @ PAPPU S/O- ARJUN PD. YADAV. 6. AJAY KUMAR YADAV, S/O- BANARSI DAS ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BHAWANIPUR, P.S.- GOPALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. Amiya Kunal, Advocate. For the State : Mr Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 10.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners assail order dated 13th January, 2010 passed in Cr. Appeal no. 146 of 2008 whereby on a consideration of the materials available on record, the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned trial court in Tr. No. 95 of 2008 has been confirmed. It is to be recorded here that the petitioners herein were charged under Sections (25 1-B)a and 26(1)/35 of the Arms Act for having possessed arms without any valid licence. Petitioners were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year and R.I. for 06 months under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the orders impugned, submits that a perusal of the prosecution case would show that the petitioners were not found in conscious possession of the arms. It is thus contended that the two orders passed by the learned courts below are vitiated in law. Learned APP, on the other hand, states that there is 2 concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and as such they do not merit interference. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the two judgments. It appears that based on evaluation of prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the arms were in conscious possession of the petitioners. On re-scanning lower appellate court confirmed the said findings. No illegality has been shown to me in coming to such conclusion. Consequently, I do not find any illegality in the order. There is no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. Since I have considered the matter on merit, the question of limitation pales into insignificance. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )