IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1689 of 2010 SANOJ KUMAR SINGH …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. Ashutosh Kumar & :Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh For he State :Mr. Matloob Rab, APP ----------- 02. 01.12.2010 Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives services of notice on behalf of the State. Heard. With the consent of the parties, this application is now finally disposed of. The petitioner assails the appellate court judgment dated 7th October, 2010, passed on Cr. Appeal 23 of 2010, whereby the conviction recorded under section 25(1-B) A has been upheld. Learned appellate court, however, acquitted the petitioner of the charges punishable under section 26 of the Arms Act. For an occurrence that had taken place on 30.05.1996, the petitioner was charged and put on trial. As per the allegation in the FIR, on getting confidential information, the police raided the ‘Dalan’ of another co-accused wherefrom several accused persons were seen fleeing way. Three of them including petitioner were apprehended. From the possession of the petitioner, no fire-arm was recovered. Two others were found possessed with certain fire-arms. At the trial, eight 2 witnesses were examined, besides exhibiting the documents to prove the charge(s). Learned trial court on a consideration of materials available on record found him guilty under sections 25(1-B) A and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine having default clause and R.I. for one year with fine having default clause respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred aforesaid appeal which was disposed of in the manner noted hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly no fire-arm was recovered from his possession. It is contended that he had to undergo the ordeal/rigours of trial for about 14 years. It is seen from the trial court judgment that he was found aged about 35 years. There is no finding in the trial court judgment that he was ever convicted earlier for any criminal charge. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, It is contended that the petitioner deserves a lessor quantum of punishment. It is also contended that he has remained in custody for more than nine months. Learned APP, however, supported the two impugned orders. It is contended that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by two courts below which cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is very much apparent from the records including the two impugned judgments that the petitioner was not found possessed of any fire-arm. He has been held guilty 3 with the aid of section 35 of the Arms Act. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner had to fight criminal litigation for about 14 years. Fighting litigation for such a long time and thereby undergoing several exasperating circumstances is a shade of punishment which needs to be kept in focus while inflicting sentence(s) for the proven charge(s). This Court is not able to find from the trial court and appellate court judgments that he was earlier found guilty and convicted for any criminal charge. This Court thus finds force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is satisfied that a lessor quantum of sentence shall subserve the ends of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction recorded under section 25(1-B) A of the Arms Act, the sentence awarded thereunder is reduced to R.I. for one year. Other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence shall remain unchanged/unaltered. Application is dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )