IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.582 of 2011 INDRAJEET PASWAN SON OF NATHUNI PASWAN, R/O- VILLAGE-DOSTIYA, P.S.- SONBARSA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ----------- 2 16.05.2011 Matter requires consideration on the question of sentence. Hence 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 itself. Petitioner was put on trial vide T.R. No. 237 of 2009 for charge(s) punishable under Section 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act. As per the prosecution case, he was found in possession of one country made loaded pistol. Eight P.Ws were examined to prove the charges besides exhibiting documents. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the witnesses of the seizure (Ext.1). They turned hostile but in their examinations-in-chief admitted their signatures/L.T.Is on the seizure list/memo. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty under the aforesaid sections of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 02 years with fine and R.I. for 01 year under 2 Sections 25(1-B)a and 26(1) of the Arms Act respectively vide judgment and order dated 24th January, 2009. Imposition of fine carried default clause(s). Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, he preferred appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 07 of 2009. On a reappraisal of the evidence on record, learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 20.3.2003. For six years, the petitioners had to face rigours/ordeal of trial. Referring to the Trial Court judgment, it is submitted that the petitioner was not found convicted in any criminal case earlier. It is submitted that the petitioner deserves a lesser quantum of sentence. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal. It appears from the submissions of the counsel as well as materials on record that petitioner had to face the ordeal/rigours of trial for more than six years. Fighting criminal litigation for a long time is a shade of punishment as during the said period, litigant has to undergo several exasperating circumstances having adverse impact on his 3 mental and economical conditions. It further appears from the Trial Court judgment that the petitioner has not previously been convicted. The Trial Court found him aged about 40 years. By now, he must be a middle aged person. Considering all these aspects/matter, this Court is satisfied that a lenient sentence, would sub-serve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and duly affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the conviction recorded under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act is reduced to 1 ½ years. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain intact/unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)