IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1391 of 2010 BRAHMDEO YADAV S/O LATE BUTAI YADAV --- PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR . --- OPP. PARTY For the Petitioner : Mrs.Archana Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 02 05.10.2010 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally heard and disposed of. Petitioner is aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned trial Court in Tr. No. 1089 of 2006, G.R.No. 1081 of 1995, whereby he has been held guilty under Section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years besides imposition of fine having default clause(s). Appeal of the petitioner being Cr. Appeal no. 53 of 2006/166 of 2009 failed as learned lower appellate Court ( Additional Sessions Judge- III),Aurangabad by judgment and order dated 11-08-2010 on rescanning the evidence found that the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Court did not merit any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place on 26.07.1995. The trial consumed more than 11 years. At the time of recording conviction, petitioner was found 62 years old. It is contended that by now the petitioner must have crossed 68 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the trial Court’s judgment, submits that no past conviction and/or 2 criminal antecedent was found against the petitioner. It is thus contended that petitioner deserves a lenient view so far as imposition of sentence is concerned. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgments. It is contended that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below based on appraisal of the evidence on record which merit no interference. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the materials on record, it is found that petitioner was assessed 62 years old at the time of recording conviction i.e. on 30.05.2006. He had to undergo the rigors/ordeal of trial for about 11 years. For all these years he must be labouring under the threat of being finally punished. It further appears that he carries no criminal antecedent. These facts emanating from the record justify a lesser sentence for the charge(s) proved against him. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the petitioner deserves a lesser sentence. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment and order of conviction recorded by two Courts below the sentence of R.I. for 03 years awarded under Section 25(1-B) A of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for 02 years. Other part(s)/condition(s) of sentence shall, however, remain intact. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)