IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.915 of 2010 1. GOPAL CHOUDHARY S/O LATE BASHISHTHA CHOUDHARY 2. SANJEEV CHOUDHARY S/O GOPAL CHOUDHARY ( BOTH OF VILL- DEVASI, P.S. KATORIA, DIST. BANKA ---- PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP.PARTY. For the Petitioners :Mr. Nageshwar Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, APP. ----------- 02 01.07.2010 Heard both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State of Bihar. With the consent of parties the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself In view of the submissions that have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the orders I propose to pass, the facts of the case may not be dealt with in detail. Only the projector contour of the case may be outlined. The two petitioners herein are father and son. They were found to have been arrested with one loaded country made pistol which would kept beneath the bed sheet. Accordingly they were charged and tried for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 25(1-B) A 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. On a consideration of the materials on record, including that of the two seizure list witnesses PW’s 1 and 2, it was found and held by the trial Court that charges stand proved. Accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year each under Section 25(1-B)A, and 26 of 2 the Arms Act. They were also imposed fine in both the heads with default clause(s). Appeal of the petitioners failed without any relief. Hence the present revision application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1998. The trial of the petitioners consumed nearly 12 years. For all these years, the father and son were made to undergo threat of being punished. Fighting criminal litigation for such a long time definitely tells upon the mental and economical conditions of the accuseds/litigants. Referring to the order sheet of the learned Court below regarding surrender of the petitioners, it is submitted that petitioner no.1 Gopal Choudhary (Father) is aged about 60 years. It is next submitted that no recovery admittedly was made from the possession of petitioner no.2, namely, Sanjeev Choudhary. Learned trial Court has noted the submissions of the petitioners that they are the first offenders. It is, therefore, submitted that lenient view, so far as the imposition of sentence is concerned, may be taken in the present case. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgments. It is submitted that there is no perversity and/or illegality in the approach of the two courts below and as such the judgment and order impugned may not be interfered with. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the materials on record as reflected from the two judgments, this Court is satisfied that a lesser punishment shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while maintaining the 3 conviction the sentence of one year S.I. awarded under Section 25(1-B)A and 26 under each head is/are reduced to 06 months S.I. under each head. Other part/condition of sentence remain unaltered. With this modification in sentence(s), the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)