IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1304 of 2011 Lalu Sah, son of Ramjee Sah, village – Gangoi, Police Station- Paroo, District Muzaffarpur. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 19.10.2011 The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC V, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2008 by which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in G. R. Case No. 1579 of 2005, Trial No. 2005 of 2008 has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this application can be disposed of at the time of admission itself. Learned counsel for the State has got no objection. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.9.2005 after seeing the police the petitioner fled away and on getting information that the petitioner is in illegal possession of the firearms, the house of the petitioner was 2 searched in presence of two independent witnesses and a countrymade pistol and two cartridges were recovered from the wooden box of the petitioner. Seizure list was prepared on the spot as per the rule. On the basis of written report of A.S.I., Paroo P. S. Case No. 141 of 2005 was instituted under Section 25(1-B)a, 26 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. After trial the petitioner was found guilty under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 25(1-B)a and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 26 of the Arms Act. In case of non payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and two months respectively under above sections of Arms Act. Both the sentences to run concurrently. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2008 which has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court has been upheld. It has been submitted in paragraph 9 3 of this revision application that the petitioner has been arrested on 19.3.2006 and remained in custody till 6.12.2006. During trial he also remained in custody from 28.5.2008 to 11.11.2008 and again the petitioner surrendered on 13.10.2011 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than one year and two months. There is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. The petitioner has minor children and there is no other person to look after and maintain them. The sentence of the petitioner deserves modification. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of 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 already remained in custody for more than one year and two months and he has no criminal antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence of the petitioner should 4 be modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this petition is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court of Sri Jyoti Prakash, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in G. R. No. 1579 of 2005, Trial No. 2005/2008 at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)