IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.482 of 2011
SHANKAR SAHANI, S/O- LATE BAHADUR SAHANI, R/O- VILLAGE-
PANCHTAKI YADU, P.S.- BAIRGANIA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
For the petitioner : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP
-----------
4 23.06.2011 Heard.
Matter requires consideration on the question of
sentence. Hence Rule confined to question of sentence
only.
Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the
State.
With the consent of parties, the application is
being finally disposed of at this stage itself.
Petitioner, along with others, was tried vide Tr.
No. 303 of 1997 for the charges punishable under Sections
25(A) and 26/35 of the Arms Act and by judgment and order
dated 6.3.1997 held guilty thereunder and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine having default clause
and R.I. for 03 years under Sections 25(A) and 26/35 of the
Arms Act respectively with further direction that both the
sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner preferred appeal vide Cr. Appeal No. 19/1997.
Learned Appellate Court by judgment dated 19th May, 2008
partly allowed the appeal in part. Conviction recorded under
Section 25(A) was found not sustainable and set aside. He
was, however, found rightly held guilty under Section 26/35
2
of the Arms Act. Sentence imposed thereunder was reduced
to R.I. for 02 years with fine having default clause leading to
filing of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
as per the prosecution case, on a tip off, house of one of the
co-accuseds was searched wherefrom one gun and few
cartridges were recovered. Petitioner was seen escaping
therefrom and a chase was offered and he was captivated.
He was, on search, found possessed with 02 live cartridges.
It is contended that the occurrence as per the prosecution
had taken place on 4.10.1986. Petitioner had to face the
ordeal of trial for close to 11 years when the Trial Court by
judgment and order dated 6.3.1997 held him guilty. The
appeal thereafter remained pending for another 10 years. It
is submitted that the petitioner was thus made to undergo
several exasperating and excruciating circumstances which
definitely had adverse impact on his mental, physical and
economical condition. It is submitted that the petitioner thus
deserves a lesser quantum of sentence for the proven
charge particularly when there is no previous conviction
found and recorded against him. It is also contended that at
the time of recording conviction, petitioner was assessed 30
years of age and by now he is a middle aged person.
Learned counsel states that the petitioner has already
remained in custody for about 16 months.
3
Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits that
in view of concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two
Courts below, the matter does not require consideration on
merit.
Having heard the parties, this Court finds merit
in the submission of the petitioner that long drawn criminal
proceeding taken against the petitioner had adversely
affected his mental, economical and physical conditions.
Fighting criminal litigation for a long time and thereby to
undergo rigours thereof is relevant consideration in the
matter of inflicting sentence for the proven charge(s). This
Court is thus satisfied that a lesser quantum of sentence, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, would subserve the
cause of justice.
Accordingly, while upholding his conviction
recorded by the two Courts below under Section 26/35 of
the Arms Act, the sentence awarded thereunder is reduced
to R.I. for 1 ½ years. The fine imposed by the learned
Appellate Court is also reduced to Rs. 500/- in default
whereof, the petitioner shall undergo additional period of
R.I. for 15 days.
With this modification in sentence, the
application is dismissed.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J)
pkj