IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.34 of 2011 SRI NIWAS YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 10.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner assails the appellate order dated 15.09.2010 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.2 Buxar in Cr. Appeal no. 48 of 2009 whereby the appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence. For an occurrence that was committed in the year 1998, petitioner was put on trial vide Tr. No. 1209 of 2009. On a consideration of the evidence on record learned trial Court found and held him guilty under Section 25(1-B)A and Section 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) having default clause. He was also sentenced under Section 26 of the Arms Act to undergo R.I. for 01 year with fine having default clause. Aggrieved thereby he preferred appeal which was dismissed with modification in sentence. Learned appellate court on a consideration of the materials on record reduced the sentence imposed under Section 25(1-B)A from R.I. for 03 years to R.I. for 01 years. The fine of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) thereunder was, however, not interfered with. So far as sentence under Section 26 of the Arms Act is concerned, the appellate Court did not interfere. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial in the present case remained pending for about 11 years. This by itself is sufficient to indicate the trauma under which the petitioner had to undergo in fighting the criminal litigation for such a longtime. It is next contended that there is no past conviction found and recorded by learned trial Court. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be perverse or patently illegal justifying interference on merit. He, however, concedes that the petitioner had to fight the criminal litigation for about 11 years. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties this Court is satisfied that the petitioner had undergone ordeal of trial for a long time. Considering all these aspects, this Court is satisfied that the following modification in sentence shall sub serve the cause of justice:- The fine of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) imposed under Section 25(1-B) A of the Arms Act is hereby set aside. Similarly fine imposed under Section 26 of the Arms Act is also set aside. With this modification in sentence only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)