IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1954 of 2009 BIJENDRA YADAV,son of Hira Lal Yadav, resident of village-Rahathua,P.S.- Brahmapur,District-Buxar. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 23-12-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This revision application has been directed against the judgment dated 18-09-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- F.T.C.-IV, Buxar in Criminal Appeal No.50/2006, by which he has dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and order dated 07-09- 2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Buxar in G.R.Case No.321/2005, Trial No.1661/2006, whereby petitioner has been convicted and awarded sentence to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine one month simple imprisonment. Infirmities about non-examination of Investigating Officer, independent seizure list witnesses and contradiction in statement of the witnesses though is pointed out affecting the conclusion of conviction but learned counsel for the petitioner prefers rather stresses the excessive sentences awarded to the petitioner. According to him a country made pistol and two live cartridges are recovered from the petitioner’s possession without his overt act directing commission on any other offence, for which he remained in custody for a period more than one year and three months i.e. since 07-03-2005 to 28-04-2006 in course of trial and since 28-10-2009 till today while revision was filed. In the case maximum punishment which could be awarded 2 i.e. of three years rigorous imprisonment is imposed further with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and on failure to deposit the amount simple imprisonment for one month. While making allegation it is mentioned by the informant that petitioner was hardened criminal but no evidence was adduced on the point. So, finding the nature of the weapon and cartridges recovered, in my opinion also, the period undergone with fine is sufficient towards punishment. With such modification in sentence affirming the conviction this revision application is dismissed. As the petitioner is in jail, he is directed to be released after deposit of fine, if not required in any other case. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )