IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.309 of 2011 NILESH KUMAR @ NILESH SINGH,S/O- SRI GOPAL SINGH, R/O- BARO RAMPUR, P.S.- GARHARA, (BARAUNI), DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 08.04.2011 Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, the application is being finally disposed of at this stage. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.2.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Begusarai on Cr. Appeal No. 130/2010 whereby the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Trial Court in Tr. No. 472/2010 has been affirmed with modification in sentence. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was dotted and arrested by the police personnel on 18.8.2009. On search, he was found possessed with one country made pistol and one .315 bore live cartridges. Accordingly, he was put on trial wherein 04 prosecution witnesses were examined besides exhibiting different documents. On a consideration of the evidence on record, learned Trial Court found him guilty under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to under R.I. for 03 years with fine having default clause under each head/count. Aggrieved 2 over the said judgment and order of conviction, he preferred appeal which was dismissed with modification in sentence. Instead of R.I. for 03 years with fine under each head, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and six months under each head/count having default clause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has remained in custody since 18.8.2009. It is submitted that the trial consumed more than a year. Thereafter the appeal remained pending for 02 years. Fighting criminal litigation for these years have telling effects on the mental and economical condition of a litigant. It is submitted that the petitioner is fairly young person and earning member for his whole family. Petitioner deserves a lesser quantum of sentence. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which do not require interference on merit. It is contended that from the Trial Court judgment, it appears that petitioner has some criminal history. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner had to fight criminal litigation for more than a year. His appeal remained pending for close to 02 years. Petitioner, therefore, had to suffer the ordeals/rigours of trial. It further appears from the submissions advanced before the Trial 3 Court that he is an earning member of the family. Having regard to all these facts appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence than what has been imposed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by learned Trial Court and duly affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the sentence awarded under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(i) of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for 16 months under each head/count. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. Let the order be communicated through fax on depositing appropriate fee by the petitioner. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)