IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.897 of 2010 YOGENDRA RAI, son of Late Ramgulam Rai, resident of village Chantha Balupar, Police Statation Bachwara, Begusarai. …Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …opposite party For the Petitoner:Mr.Sudhir Singh Raghwanand For the State : Mrs. Veena Rani Prasad, APP ----------- 03. 07.07.2010 A petition at Flag-A under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the present revision application. On hearing both sides and for the reasons disclosed in the application, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the matter is now being disposed of. Petitioner was charged u/s 25(I-B) (a) and 26(1) of the Arms Act for being found in possession of one country- made pistol and three SLR cartridges. He was accordingly put on trial. At the trial, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the guilt. P.W. 2 is the informant, whereas P. Ws. 1 and 5 are the witnesses in whose presence such seizure was made. On a consideration of the material placed on record - 2 - including diverse exhibits, learned trial court found and held that charges have been proved. He was accordingly convicted on both counts. So far as section 25(I-B) (a) is concerned, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with fine having default clause. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 6/2009. On a re-consideration of the evidence available on record, learned lower appellate court by its judgment and order dated 15th December, 2009 allowed the same in part. The conviction recorded under section 26(1) of the Arms Act was set aside, whereas the conviction recorded under section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act was maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner at the time of recording conviction was found to be 66 years of age. It is next contended that learned trial court has recorded that there was no evidence to suggest any previous conviction. It is next contended that he had to undergo the rigours of trial for three years which is suggestive of volume of punishment. Learned APP, on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgments. On hearing both sides and after perusal of the material available on records, this Court is of the considered - 3 - view that while maintaining the conviction recorded under section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, a lenient view so far as imposition of sentence is concerned shall subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly the sentence of 03 years R.I. is reduced to R.I. for two years. Other conditions of the sentence as imposed by lower appellate court remain untouched/unaltered. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )