IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.996 of 2010
BRAHMA YADAV SON OF KAMESHWAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE REHARI, P.S.- PAKARIBARAWAN (DHAMAUL),
DISTRICT- NAWADA.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
For the petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP
-----------
2 12.07.2010 Heard both sides.
Rule confined to question of sentence only. Learned
A.P.P. waves notice on behalf of the State.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is being finally
disposed of at this stage itself.
In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and the order this court proposes to pass, it is not
necessary to set out all the relevant facts in detail.
Petitioner along with one Sanjay Yadav was hauled up
while escaping from the Khalihan. On search, petitioner was found
possessed of a country made loaded pistol and 05 live cartridges.
Learned trial court on a consideration of the materials on record
found and held the petitioner guilty under Section 25(1-B)a and 26(1)
of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 03 years on
each count and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default clause
under both heads..
Petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
21.11.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Nawada in Tr. No. 1128 of 2009 preferred Cr. Appeal no. 30 of
2009. The same was considered and disposed of on 30.3.2010 by
2
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Nawada reducing the
sentence of R.I. from 03 years to 02 years without interfering with
the imposition of fine recorded under both the counts.
.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial of
the present case protracted for more than 04 years and as such he
had to undergo the ordeal of trial for more than 04 years. It is next
submitted that learned trial court has recorded that petitioner does
not have any previous conviction to his credit. It is next submitted
that he is now aged about 52 years and is well tethered to his family.
It is thus contended that the quantum of sentence so awarded by the
appellate court require consideration.
Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, supporting the two
judgments submits that there is concurrent finding of guilt and the
judgments do not require any interference.
On a consideration of submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties and after perusing the materials on record including the
two judgments, this court is satisfied that a lesser punishment would
sub-serve the cause of justice. Consequently, while maintaining the
conviction, this Court reduces the sentence of R.I. from 02 years to
R.I. for 1 ½ years under both heads. It is made clear that other part
of sentence so recorded by the appellate court remain untouched.
With this modification in sentence only, the application is
dismissed.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )
pkj