IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.881 of 2011 Arun Tiwari @ Arun Trivedi, S/O Laliteshwar Trivedi, R/O Nawada, Police Station - Madhepur District Madhubani. ………Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ……………Opposite Party ----------- 4. 22.11.2011 This application has been listed under the heading for orders on the point of bail matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lower court records have been received and this application may be disposed of at this stage itself. The learned counsel for the State has got no objection. The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 8.06.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Cr. Appeal No.06/2009 by which the judgment and order dated 6.04.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jhanjharpur in G.R. No.506/2002, Trial No.704/2009 arising out of Madhepur P.S. Case No.148/2002 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2 27.05.2002, the informant was on patrolling duty alongwith other officials and when the patrolling party headed by the informant reached at Bhim Mour Chouk, one man in suspicion started feeling away from the site which grew suspicion in the mind of the informant and consequently, the members of the patrolling party chased the said miscreant and over-powered him, who, during the course of interrogation, disclosed his name as Arun Tiwari. It is further alleged that the body of the said miscreant was searched by the informant in presence of two independent witnesses after fulfilling the requirement of law and from his full-pant, a loaded country made pistol was recovered and when the said pistol was un-loaded, a live cartridges of 12 bore was extracted from the same for which the said culprit accused did not produce any license or valid documents before the informant and also did not explain any satisfactory explanation with regard to the same. It is further stated that after adopting all the legal formalities, the said arms and ammunitions were seized by the informant in presence of the independent witnesses and a copy of the seizure list was handed over to the said accused. 3 On the basis of aforesaid self statement of the informant, Madhepur P.S. Case No.148/2002 was registered under Section 25 (1-B) a and Section 26 of the Arms Act After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. After the trial, the learned trial court has found the accused guilty under Section 25 (1-B) a and 26 of the Arms Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 25 (1-B) a of the Arms Act and further R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for 3 months and all the sentenced to run concurrently. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for 8 months prior to conviction and he has been in custody since 13.07.2011 after the disposal of the criminal appeal. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is a fit case in which sentence of the petitioner should be modified. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances stated 4 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 and a fine of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- in the trial court and file a receipt thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner will be released, if not required in any other case. With this modification in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Let this order be communicated to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioner. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)