IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1174 of 2010 CHANDESHWAR RAM S/O RAMPHAL RAM R/O VILL- BOKHARA, P.S. NANPUR, DIST. SITAMARHI . ---- PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ---- OPP.PARTY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02. 06.08.2010 Heard Both sides. Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State. With the consent of the parties the present revision application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Sole petitioner, while traveling on a jeep, was found in possession of one country made pistol with two live cartridges which were seized in presence of PW 1 and 4. He was thus tried for the offence(s) under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of Arms Act in Tr. No. 324 of 2009. Altogether 05 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to bring home the charge(s). On a consideration of the evidence brought on record, learned trial Court by judgment and order dated 4th April 2009 found and held him guilty under Section 25(1-B)a and Section 26 of the Arms Act. Accordingly he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years with fine having default clause(s) under both counts. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal no. 22 of 2009. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 4, Sitamarhi 2 rescanned the evidence and considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and came to the conclusion that the findings of guilt recorded by trial Court did not suffer from any illegality. Consequently the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence in the present case had taken place on 08.09.1999. Petitioner was found aged about 45 years at the time of conviction. Learned trial Court has found that there is no previous conviction against the petitioner. It is contended that petitioner had to undergo the ordeal of trial for about 10 years which in itself is a shade of punishment as fighting a criminal litigation for a long time had exasperating effects on the accused. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner deserves a lesser punishment. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, supported the two impugned judgments. It is contended that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below which have not been shown to be perverse and as such this Court may not interfere with the findings of guilt. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that petitioner was made accused in connection with an occurrence that had taken place in the year 1999. Learned trial Court recorded the judgment and order of conviction in the year 2009. For all these years he was made to undergo the rigors of trial. It is further seen from trial Court judgment that petitioner was not found previously convicted in any offence. This Court is, thus, satisfied that a lesser 3 punishment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall sub serve the cause of justice. Accordingly while upholding the conviction, the sentence of R.I. for 02 years recorded under Section 25(1-B)a and Section 26 of the Arms Act is reduced to R.I. for 18 months only. The other part(s)/condition(s) of the sentence(s) shall remain intact. With this modification in sentence(s) only, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)