The recovery of firearms from the petitioner's shop and the consistent evidence of official witnesses were crucial in upholding the conviction. Additionally, the court's consideration of the time elapsed and the petitioner's age in modifying the sentence established the principle of balancing justice with individual circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001, 105 of 2002 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, whereby the learned appellate has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar in G.R. Case No. 320/1998 and T.R. No. 303/2001.

4. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Submissions of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below, has submitted that at the time of seizure of the fire arms, admittedly the petitioner was not present on the spot. He has further submitted that so far as the seizure list witnesses are concerned, they have turned hostile, however, they have not disputed their respective signatures on the seizure list. He submits that the recovery was admittedly not from the physical possession of the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt and these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned courts below.

6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged offence is of the year 1998 and much time has elapsed from the date of the incident; the present age of the petitioner is more than 59 years and the petitioner has faced the rigors of criminal case for a long time, and accordingly some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence be modified.

Submissions on behalf of the opposite party-State

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing the materials on record. He further submits that the seizure list witnesses, though turned hostile, but had admitted their signatures on the seizure list and the official witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and they have been fully cross-examined from the side of the defence, but no material contradictions could be taken.

8. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as the materials exhibit i.e. the seized arms are concerned, the same were exhibited before the learned court below as Ext.-I and II and they were marked as exhibits without any objection and as recorded in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, there was no cross-examination also on this point. The learned counsel submits that the fire arms kept in concealed manner were seized from the shop belonging to the petitioner and accordingly, the seizure was from the constructive possession of the petitioner. He submits that both the learned courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments and accordingly, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.

9. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the minimum sentence for the alleged offence during the time when the offence wa