IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.915 of 2010
1. GOPAL CHOUDHARY S/O LATE BASHISHTHA CHOUDHARY
2. SANJEEV CHOUDHARY S/O GOPAL CHOUDHARY
( BOTH OF VILL- DEVASI, P.S. KATORIA, DIST. BANKA
---- PETITIONERS.
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
--- OPP.PARTY.
For the Petitioners :Mr. Nageshwar Prasad, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, APP.
-----------
02 01.07.2010 Heard both sides.
Rule confined to question of sentence only.
Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the State of
Bihar.
With the consent of parties the present revision
application is being disposed of at this stage itself
In view of the submissions that have been advanced on
behalf of the petitioners and the orders I propose to pass, the facts
of the case may not be dealt with in detail. Only the projector
contour of the case may be outlined.
The two petitioners herein are father and son. They
were found to have been arrested with one loaded country made
pistol which would kept beneath the bed sheet. Accordingly they
were charged and tried for the offence(s) punishable under
Sections 25(1-B) A 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. On a consideration
of the materials on record, including that of the two seizure list
witnesses PW’s 1 and 2, it was found and held by the trial Court
that charges stand proved. Accordingly, they were sentenced to
undergo S.I. for one year each under Section 25(1-B)A, and 26 of
2
the Arms Act. They were also imposed fine in both the heads with
default clause(s). Appeal of the petitioners failed without any
relief. Hence the present revision application.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1998.
The trial of the petitioners consumed nearly 12 years. For all these
years, the father and son were made to undergo threat of being
punished. Fighting criminal litigation for such a long time
definitely tells upon the mental and economical conditions of the
accuseds/litigants. Referring to the order sheet of the learned Court
below regarding surrender of the petitioners, it is submitted that
petitioner no.1 Gopal Choudhary (Father) is aged about 60 years.
It is next submitted that no recovery admittedly was made from
the possession of petitioner no.2, namely, Sanjeev Choudhary.
Learned trial Court has noted the submissions of the petitioners
that they are the first offenders. It is, therefore, submitted that
lenient view, so far as the imposition of sentence is concerned,
may be taken in the present case.
Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, supported the two
impugned judgments. It is submitted that there is no perversity
and/or illegality in the approach of the two courts below and as
such the judgment and order impugned may not be interfered with.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
after going through the materials on record as reflected from the
two judgments, this Court is satisfied that a lesser punishment
shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while maintaining the
3
conviction the sentence of one year S.I. awarded under Section
25(1-B)A and 26 under each head is/are reduced to 06 months S.I.
under each head. Other part/condition of sentence remain
unaltered.
With this modification in sentence(s), the application
is dismissed.
Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)