IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1439 of 2009 1. DEEPAK YADAV,son of Diwakar Yadav 2. Mantu YAdav,son of Faudi Yadav Both resident of village-Salarpur, P.S.-Parbatta,Distt.-Khagaria. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 10-09-2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Interlocutory Application No.1883 of 2009 has been filed to condone the delay in filing this revision application. Sufficient reason has been given in the interlocutory application for not filing this revision in time. Accordingly, the delay in filing this revision is hereby condoned. This revision application has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.8.2008 passed in Cr.Appeal nos.22/008 and 26/2008 by the Sessions Judge, Khagaria, arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Khagaria in G.R.No.1278 of 2007, Tr.No.2473 of 2008. Petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and 25(1-B)a , 26(i), 27(i) of the Arms Act by the trial court and each of the petitioners was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for both the offences separately, though both sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal conviction under the Arms Act is set aside and that remained maintained after modification under Section 384 I.P.C. and sentence also remained the same, which is the maximum period of punishment 2 for the offence under Section 384 I.P.C. At this stage submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they remained in custody for a period of two years and five days i.e. from 05.9.2007 till today. So, that can be observed as sufficient towards the sentence. According to the learned counsel while the conviction was for the offence under Section 386 I.P.C., for which maximum period of imprisonment was 10 years, three years was awarded. Now conviction is minimized to offence under Section 384 I.P.C. So, the period of three years cannot be justified and he stressed that under this circumstance the period undergone can be justified towards their punishment. I agree with the same. As the point of conviction has been given up so that is not taken up for consideration. Accordingly, order of conviction is affirmed and sentence is modified to the period undergone. They are exempted from fine also. In the result, this revision application is dismissed with modification in sentence. As both the petitioners are in jail, they are directed to set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court below through fax at the cost of the petitioners. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )