IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1160 of 2010 SUNIL YADAV son of Lakho Yadav, resident of village Chauki P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Begusarai … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …opposite party For the petitioner : Mr.P.N.Shahi & : Mr.Sanjeet Kr. Singh For the State : Mr. Upadhyay,APP ----------- 02. 05.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Rule confined to the question of sentence only. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties, the matter is now being disposed of. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13th May,2010, passed on his appeal being Cr. Appeal No.70 of 2009 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-Cum-F.T.C.IV, Begusarai. By the said order, the conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial court under section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act in Tr.No.1190/2009 has been affirmed. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and one year respectively under sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms act. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned, submits that recoveries of fire-arms from the room of the house cannot be said to be from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is next contended that no independent witness has - 2 - supported the prosecution case. It is also contended that the seizure witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 and 2 have not supported the prosecution case. It is also contended that sentence imposed upon the petitioner is excessive and needs consideration. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below which have not been shown to be perverse and, as such, they merit no interference. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears that prosecution examined five P.Ws. to prove the charge(s). P.Ws.1 and 2 are seizure witnesses. They have accepted their signatures on the seizure memo. On a consideration of materials on record, learned trial court found and held that charges have been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. The appellate court has re-considered the evidence and affirmed the finding of guilt. There is thus concurrent findings of guilt. In my view, the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two courts below need no interference as learned counsel for the petitioner has not been bale to show any patently illegality in the order(s) impugned. Another aspect of the matter which has been canvassed at the Bar does need consideration. It is contended that petitioner is the first offender. He had to undergo the rigours of trial for nearly three years. Trial court has found him aged about 31 years. - 3 - Having regard to that aspect of the matter, this Court is satisfied that a lessor punishment shall subserve the cause of justice. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment(s) and order(s) under revision, this Court reduces the sentence imposed upon the petitioner under sections 25(1-B)a of Arms Act from R.I two years to R.I. one year. Other part(s) of sentence(s) shall remain unaltered. With this modification in sentence, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )