IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.667 of 2011 BALBIR YADAV S/O- LATE BABULAL YADAV, R/O VILLAGE BARAITA, P.S.- GOGRI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ----------- 3 21.06.2011 I.A. No. 1288 of 2011 The present application is barred by 06 years. It is the stand of the petitioner that because of poverty, he had been living outside his village in connection with his livelihood. The appeal of the petitioner remained pending for about 07 years and was ultimately dismissed, information whereof could not be furnished to the petitioner. He became cognizant of the dismissal of the appeal, as soon as he was arrested by the Police in the month of September, 2010. Having heard the parties, the application seeking condonation is allowed. I.A. No. 1288 of 2011 stands disposed of. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of parties, the application is being finally disposed of at this stage. The petitioner was tried vide Tr. No. 179 of 1998 of the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria for an occurrence committed on 10.5.1997 and registered under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act. As per the 2 prosecution case, petitioner, in course of search, was found possessed with one country made loaded pistol with few live cartridges which were recovered from beneath the pillow of the bed occupied by the petitioner. As many as 07 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge(s) P.Ws. 2 and 3 although have been declared hostile but they have admitted their signatures/ L.T.Is on the seizure memo. On a consideration of the material, learned Trial Court by judgment and order dated 31.3.1998 held him guilty under the aforesaid charges and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years with fine under each head. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, he preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 1998. Learned Appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence on record concurred with the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 16th June, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place on 10.5.1995 and the trial of the petitioner consumed close to 02 years. Thereafter the appeal remained pending for about 07 years. For all these years, the petitioner had to undergo the rigours/ordeal of trial. It is submitted that at the time of recording conviction, he was assessed 25 years of age. Referring to the Trial Court judgment, it is submitted that there is no past conviction found 3 and recorded by the learned Trial Court. It is thus the stand of the petitioner that he deserves consideration so far as quantum of sentence imposed on him, is concerned. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent finding of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that he was assessed 25 years of age at time of recording conviction. It further appears therefrom that no past conviction was found and recorded against him. It further appears from the records that the petitioner had to fight criminal litigation for close to 08 years. These factors, if taken into account, would justify this Court in imposing lesser quantum of sentence for the proven charge(s). Accordingly, while upholding his conviction under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act, the sentence awarded thereunder is reduced to R.I. for 1 ½ years. Other part/condition(s) of sentence shall remain intact/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)