IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.449 of 2010 UPENDRA SINGH, son of Lalla Singh of village Chhabilapur, police station-Nokha, district-Rohtas at Sasaram. …Accused/Appellant/Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ..Opposite party For the petitioner :Mr. Ramchandra Singh & :Mr. Jitendra Kumar No.1 For the State :Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay ----------- 08. 06.07.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Rule confined to the question of sentence. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the State. Lower court records have already been received. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of. The petitioner was charged under sections 25(I-B) (a) and 26 of the Arms Act with an allegation that a country-made loaded pistol was recovered from his waist. It is alleged by the prosecution that on search, a country-made pistol along with two live cartridges were recovered from possession of the petitioner. At the trial seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in order to prove the charge(s). On a consideration of the materials brought on record, learned trial court has found that the prosecution has been able to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine under each count. The petitioner preferred Cr.Appeal No.22/06 which was heard and dismissed by order dated 19th January 2010. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case the occurrence had taken place on 22.7.1998, whereas trial court rendered its judgment on 28th March, 2006. From the judgment of the trial court it appears that the petitioner was not found convicted on any previous occasion. Fighting criminal litigation for long time itself is a punishment. It tells upon the mental and economical condition of the accused. At the time when the petitioner was convicted he was found aged about 30 years. Learned APP, however, opposed the application and submitted that the impugned judgments are based on appraisal of the evidence which cannot be said to be perverse and as such they do not merit any interference Considering these aspects of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lenient view so far as the imposition of sentence shall subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction recorded under section 25(1-b) (a) and 26 of the Arms Act, the sentence is reduced to one and a half year under each count. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with other part/condition of the sentence. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )