IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1543 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Mahto, son of Late Nathuni Mahto, resident of village- Kotiya Rai, P.S.-Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi. ………….Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ……..Opposite Party ---------------------------------- 3. 22.12.2011 I.A. No.2575/2011 at flag ‘A’ has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this revision application. It is submitted that the petitioner’s wife was suffering from cancer and was admitted at Mumbai where the petitioner was serving her and due to aforesaid reason, he was not knowing the fact that his appeal has been rejected. The petitioner when came to his native village and came to know that the criminal appeal has been rejected, he surrendered on 11.12.2011 before the trial court. It appears that sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay. The delay is condoned. I.A. No.2575/2011 is allowed. The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 2 31.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.15/2010/25/2010 by which the judgment and order dated 30.01.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sitamarhi in G.R. No.1017/1999, Trial No.909/2010 by which the petitioner was convicted under Sections 25 (1-B) A of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of ine to further undergo imprisonment for fiteen days has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the firearm was recovered from the person of the petitioner by the person other than the police. He has further submitted that the occurrence has taken place on 9.08.1999. More than 12 years have passed. There is no criminal antecedent. After the trial also the petitioner has not committed any offence. This application may be disposed of at this stage itself. Mrs. I.B. Pandey, the learned counsel for the State has got no objection. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and on 3 perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the occurrence has taken place on 9.08.1999. A country made pistol has been recovered from the person of the petitioner by the person other than the police. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He has been in custody for about six months and his wife is also under- treatment for cancer. It further appears that the petitioner has already deposited a fine of Rs.200/-as directed by the learned trial court. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, it is a fit case in which the sentence of the petitioner should be reduced/modified. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is directed to be released from custody, if not required in any other case. With this modification in the sentence, this revision application stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioner. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)