IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1672 of 2010 SHAMBHU SINGH …PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR .. OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr.Bimal Kumar & :Mr. Birendra Kumar For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 09.12.2010 Rule confined to the question of sentence. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent the parties, this application is now finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, relevant facts, in detail, may not be set out. Suffice it to indicate that for an offence allegedly committed on 29.01.2004, petitioner was put on trial, vide T.R.No.796/07 for being possessed of one cartridge. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution, besides exhibiting documents in order to prove the charge(s). on a consideration of materials available on record, he was found and held guilty under section 25(1-B)(a) and 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and R.I. for one year with fine having default clause respectively. Aggrieved by aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, he preferred Cr. Appeal No.40 of 2007. Learned appellate court appraised the evidence and having perused the evidence of the witnesses 2 including those of seizure list witnesses, namely, P.Ws 2 and 3, did not interfere with the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned trial court. Hence the present application. It is submitted that the petitioner was charged for having possessed of one cartridge. Referring to paragraph 6 of the appellate court judgment, it is submitted that whether the said cartridge was live or used/dead is under dispute in view of observation made therein. It is next contended that for more than three years he had to fight the trial. Thereafter the appeal preferred by him consumed more than three years. It is thus submitted that for all these years he had to face several excruciating circumstances which need to be kept in focus while awarding the sentence for the proven charge(s). Referring to trial court judgment, it is submitted that there is no past conviction recorded against the petitioner and as such, it can be submitted that he has a fair antecedent. It is the submission of the petitioner that regard being had to these facts appearing from the records, a lenient view, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, be taken by this Court. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory meriting interference in the impugned order/judgment on merit. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner was not found previously 3 convicted for any such offence. It further appears that at the time of recording conviction, he was found aged about 26 years. It is further seen from the records that he had to fight criminal litigation for more than three years. His appeal thereafter remained pending for another three years. Fighting litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment which has to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, this Court is satisfied that a lenient view of the matter so far as the sentence is concerned, shall subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction under section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act, the sentence is reduced to one-and-a-half years. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact. With the modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )